The final recorded vote for S.3729 in the House last night is available. There aren’t too many surprises in who voted for or against the bill; in addition to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who spoke out against the bill on the House floor, some Ohio representatives, including Dennis Kucinich (D) and Steven LaTourette (R), who had been lobbying against the bill, voted no. Several key appropriators, including the chair and ranking member of the full appropriations committee, Reps. David Obey (D-WI) and Jerry Lewis (R-CA), voted in favor of the bill. One interesting no vote: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who is in line to become Speaker next year should Republicans win control of the House in November’s elections.
Some of those who did vote for the bill didn’t sound that enthusiastic about it. “While I am not completely satisfied with the Senate bill, I am very pleased it passed,” Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), ranking member of the House Science and Technology Committee, said in a statement. “While I preferred the compromise language offered by Chairman [Bart] Gordon, I am pleased that we were at least able to pass a bill.” Gordon, meanwhile, reiterated in his own statement plans to seek changes when appropriators take up their spending bills after the November elections, calling the passage of S.3729 “only one more step in crafting a sustainable, affordable, and productive future path for NASA.”
Senate leaders, understandably, were a little more effusive in their reactions. “I congratulate my House colleagues for taking a big step forward for America’s space program,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement. “It’s been a long, rigorous process – but I believe we’ve reached a sensible center.” The committee’s ranking member, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, “lauded” the House, in particular Houston-area representatives, in her own statement. “I am extremely pleased that the Houston delegation… pulled together to gain approval of the Congressional initiative to preserve America’s future in space and protect our proud heritage of exploration.”
One of the companies most affected by the bill, ATK, issued a statement early Thursday saying that it was “encouraged” by the bill’s passage. “The passage of S.3729 provides ATK the opportunity to support NASA on the development of a heavy-lift vehicle for human space flight that will utilize proven advanced solid rocket motor propulsion capabilities,” the company stated. ATK, of course, loses the Ares 1 launch vehicle that won’t be continued under the new plan, but the relatively prescriptive language in the Senate bill and accompanying report on HLV design (a point of criticism by Giffords in her floor speech) would appear to give the company a consolation prize.
Congress also got a message of thanks from NASA administrator Charles Bolden. “We are grateful that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 received strong support in the House after its clearance in the Senate, and can now be sent on to the President for his signature,” Bolden said. “Passage of this bill represents an important step forward towards helping us achieve the key goals set by the President.”
Next comes Appropriations.
That ought to be fun with the lame duck sessions and a possible new Conservative Congress coming in January 2011.
Is this basically the Direct Plan with Orion?
abreakingwind – follow Mr. Muncy’s advice
Please, for the sake of all of our sanities.
As any self respecting nerd would, I have now read the entire NASA authorization bill, of note is a requirement to have an early warning system and organization to disseminate information to federal organizations for an eminent near earth object strike by September 30th 2012………September 30 2012 hmmmmmm September 30, 2012 hint hint lol![;)](http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
According to KBH:
International Space Station (ISS)
“The bill would extend full utilization of the ISS through at least 2020 and promote safe and effective operation, maintenance, and maximum utilization of the space station by ensuring that replacement or spare parts are available for delivery and installation to assure sustained operations. The bill also reserves research space for private entities to encourage a broader range of scientific research.”
Does this include people going to the ISS to conduct private research or that you can only send up something to mount in a rack?
Commercial Crew and Cargo Transportation Capabilities
The bill would direct NASA to … establish requirements for the definition of milestones and minimum performance objectives to be achieved before procurement authority is granted for commercially developed crew transportation capability.
Does this mean NASA can start funding the development but can’t actually procure the service? Or does NASA have to define every dot and crossed T first down to what kind of nut and washer can be used?
Expansion of Human Space Flight Beyond the International Space Station and Low-Earth Orbit
“The bill would direct NASA to initiate development of a government-owned, NASA-designed and operated “Space Launch System†(SLS) – a heavy lift launch capability – as soon as practicable and would establish the end of 2016 as the goal for initial capability to deliver crew and cargo to the ISS. To facilitate that schedule, the bill allows modification and/or extension of existing contracts. The bill would require NASA to develop a multi-purpose crew transportation vehicle based on Orion for use with the Space Launch System.”
A vehicle “based on Orion” but not Orion as it stands?
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who is in line to become Speaker next year should Republicans win control of the House in November’s elections.
Interesting. This ain’t over by a long shot! 2010 was a total loss. There will be less confusion in 2011. Beyond that there is no visibility.
Is this basically the Direct Plan with Orion?
Kind of DIRECT-ish, “SD-HLV Inline.” 70 mT lift capacity at first, scalable to 130 mT.
Orion morphs into Multipurpose Crew Transportation Vehicle. Probably with enhanced life support capabilities and storage in order to withstand 180 days travel time in space. No definite details however.
…establish requirements for the definition of milestones and minimum performance objectives to be achieved before procurement authority is granted
Vladislaw wrote: Does this mean NASA can start funding the development but can’t actually procure the service?
Unless there is something in the appropriations bill that spells out a specific set of technical milestones, I’d imagine that the requirements could be as tight or as loose as Bolden and Garver determine would be the most efficient way to move the process along – to minimize the gap.
But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that something like that will be included (i.e. unless the LV uses an ATK 5 segment SRB no funding will be considered).
Just so everyone can read it, here is the full document, juicy parts start on page 26
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01
So no one thought the 2012 dead line for the asteroid strike early waning system was humorous? They made a movie about it and documentaries galore and now here it is in the NASA bill lol…… I was just thinking the conspiracy theory guys would eat this up![;)](http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Scott Bass wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Is that when the snake people are supposed to come and take over the Earth?
Expect the matter to be revisited next year when the Republicans take over. As with most bills like this, it casts the future not so much in stone as in soft plastic.
Jeff, do we know why Boehner voted against it?
Yep…. Myan calendar ends , suppose to end world
you will hear about it for sure lol
Yea, that’s why the fakes on this blog are so out of touch with reality.
In the aerospace real world HLV is the missing link in the launch market. Nobody does it better than strong ATK SRBs strapped to LH/LOX lift systems. SHOW ME ANOTHER COMPANY OR COUNTRY LAUNCH SERVICE THAT CAN TRUMP LIFT TONNAGE CAPACITY -right now!
THANK YOU ATK-NASA for providing access to space !!!
Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) issued the following statement regarding the passage of the NASA authorization bill:
“ATK is encouraged by passage in the U.S. House of S.3729, the NASA authorization bill, which can now be signed into law. This legislation lays the foundation for future U.S. human space exploration. The strong bi-partisan support of the NASA authorization bill is an important next step in ensuring safe and affordable systems for continued U.S. leadership in space exploration. The passage of S.3729 provides ATK the opportunity to support NASA on the development of a heavy-lift vehicle for human space flight that will utilize proven advanced solid rocket motor propulsion capabilities.”
“Jeff, do we know why Boehner voted against it?”
The Ohio delegation in general (Kucinich, etc.) was not satisfied with the GRC funding levels in the bill. If Boehner becomes speaker, he’ll want to cut NASA by ~20% (per his targets for non-defense discretionary spending) and/or pull funding to GRC for exploration technology projects in power and propulsion and aeronautics (GRC’s traditional strengths). Either way, it doesn’t bode well for the already underfunded HLV.
FWIW…
“Expect the matter to be revisited next year when the Republicans take over.”
The vote didn’t fall on partisan lines, so the broad policy set by the authorization is unlikely to be revisited for at least another couple years (the next WH/Congressional election), even in the event that the Republicans regain control of both houses.
To the extent the Republicans revisit NASA after taking control of Congress, it will be in the context of their targets to cut non-defense discretionary spending by ~20%.
“As with most bills like this, it casts the future not so much in stone as in soft plastic.”
That’s usually true of authorization bills, but this year the appropriators deferred to the authorizers. The Senate appropriations bill already matches the authorization bill that the House voted on last night. And the House appropriators left the human space flight portions of their bill largely blank so they could be filled in by whatever authorization bill was passed by the House.
So last night’s vote casts NASA’s budgetary future through the end of 2011 in stone.
If there is a major budget cut, it remains to be seen if the compromise among the special interests will hold. The majority of members of Congress will continue not to care.
“Yea, that’s why the fakes on this blog are so out of touch with reality.”
If you’re so worried about being “out of touch with reality”, then you should reread the ATK press release:
“The passage of S.3729 provides ATK the opportunity to support NASA on the development of a heavy-lift vehicle…”
It’s only an “opportunity”. There is no guarantee in the bill language that the HLV will use SRBs or even be Shuttle-derived. Those decisions are left up to NASA. And per NASA’s FY11 budget submit, the agency prefers a LOX/kerosene and EELV/commercially derived solution.
“In the aerospace real world HLV is the missing link in the launch market.”
To what launch market? There are no funded payloads in any launch sector that require an HLV.
“THANK YOU ATK-NASA for providing access to space !!!”
ATK doesn’t build or operate launch vehicles or otherwise provide “access to space”. They only supply rocket motors to those who do. In fact, most of their business is building rocket motors for military applications that have nothing to do with access to space.
“SHOW ME ANOTHER COMPANY OR COUNTRY LAUNCH SERVICE THAT CAN TRUMP LIFT TONNAGE CAPACITY -right now!”
The only launch vehicle that uses ATK SRBs is the Shuttle. And practically any other medium, intermediate, or heavy lift launch vehicle from anywhere else in the world beats Shuttle capacity to GEO or interplanetary trajectories, because Shuttle can no longer reach those destinations. And in terms of LEO, there are multiple existing launch vehicles that can put a 20-25K kg Shuttle payload into orbit.
FWIW…
I collected these statements. Read them with a smile:
The reactions to the vote are so predictable:
Shelby states that NASA’s HSF is saved from the extermination planned in Obamaspace, while secretly planning how to arrange a fundraiser in Decataur.
Nelson lauds the bill “a new start for NASA†while secretly wondering what a mess he has brought upon himself. On the one side his legacy depends upon NASA sticking to the wording of the bill, and on the other side he must stay clear of all the blame if it fails.
Bolden states that NASA now has got a clear path to move forward, while secretly wondering when it is safe to go home.
Garver hails the bipartisan support of the bill and states the importance of a clear path forward for NASA, while secretly planning the best way to skillfully misinterpret the bill to get a workable plan
Giffords condemns the loss of thousands of jobs in the shuttle workforce while secretly feels relieved that finally her husband isn’t going to ride the glass rocket any more.
The White House states the success of turning NASA in a new direction while secretly wondering why everybody is so upbeat by space politics when it is obvious that noone really cares.
Griffin thorougly slams the bill chastising it as while secretly drawing new evil plans to destroy NASA HSF.
Gordon states that the bill is underfunded by billions and destined for failure, but still the best alternative for the new NASA while secretly cursing the delays that made it possible for Nelson to leapfrog his own proposal.
Almightywind claims that now Constellation is gone NASA HSF will soon follow while secretly wondering if anyone has noticed he really is Mike Griffin writing under a nym.
Direct applauds the bill and applaus and applauds again while secretly wondering when the hangover of reality starts kicking in
Me: I hope the calmity of this whole affair is finally over and great things will soon follow while secretly fearing that the next president is already skimming the short- lists of future committee members
Almightywind claims that now Constellation is gone NASA HSF
No. In the absence of Constellation I consider Direct the next best thing. Direct is just an Ares III.5.
Should read. “Almightywind says he is happy with Orion/SDLV while secretly lamenting the support for ISS.”
ISS and post-shuttle HSF are mutually exclusive. Hopefully when NASA realizes this they will not be afraid to throw it under the bus.
No, I am not Mike Griffin, nor do I know him. I am not an ATK share holder. However, my days in model rocketry left me with a positive opinion of solid fuel.
Peter Lykke wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“Garver hails the bipartisan support of the bill and states the importance of a clear path forward for NASA, while secretly planning the best way to skillfully misinterpret the bill to get a workable plan ”
Superb! (And perilously close to the truth. IMHO.)
I openly curse the nearly 10 m/s^2 that we are continuously tortured with, while secretly feeling very relieved that we live on such a small terrestrial planet where plate tectonics is just barely possible, while simultaneously feeling great pity for those trolls stuck on numerous terrestrial super Earths.
DIRECT fanboys do throw the best on-line parties, evah.
Word.
Wrong again…MINOR TOM.
In a SINGLE LAUNCH no other launch system service worldwide is available
to LEO (need nuclear rocket to DEEP SPACE).
again…
“SHOW ME ANOTHER COMPANY OR COUNTRY LAUNCH SERVICE THAT CAN TRUMP SINGLE LIFT TONNAGE CAPACITY ATK SRB’s+LH/LOX NASA -right now!â€
[The only launch vehicle that uses ATK SRBs is the Shuttle. And practically any other medium, intermediate, or heavy lift launch vehicle from anywhere else in the world beats Shuttle capacity to GEO or interplanetary trajectories, because Shuttle can no longer reach those destinations. And in terms of LEO, there are multiple existing launch vehicles that can put a 20-25K kg Shuttle payload into orbit.]
Obama did promise change. It’s not exactly what the Administration wants, but it’s a significant step forward. I’m guessing if the commercial path we’re embarking on works, we’ll have a radically transformed space sector by 2020. That will be exciting to watch.
Now,they’ve got to go through appropriations and execute on it. We’ll see how that goes…
Anyone here check the roll call? I was surprised that Rorabacher voted yes,but the usual suspects voted against: Paul, Frank, Conyers, among others. Paul votes against just about everything, while Frank and Conyers are liberals with a capital L, and have been anti-space (of any sort). Giffords voted against because it didn’t preserve Ares I, but that’s no surprise. One might assume Kucinich voted no because of less work going to Glenn than the original FY 11 budget had in mind, but he’s also been anti-space in the past.
Question for Major Tom: If the Authorization holds that MSFC is to manage an HLV program, how will this work if NASA chooses a non-SDHLV in the form of an Atlas Phase 2 or Falcon X?
Matt – being liberal doesn’t mean you are anti-space, thank-you very much.
I found interesting that Grayson & Garamendi both voted for it, considering their comments during the House Science hearings. (And, for the record, if you don’t think Alan Grayson is a liberal, please check)
I also found it interesting, that the Utah Delegation voted for the bill (a fairly big surprise in my book), Parker Griffith also did as well, and so did Aderholt. All of these people signed a letter arguing against the Senate Bill, just a few days ago
Bruce – seriously, take your meds, and leave the caps lock off more often.
“In a SINGLE LAUNCH no other launch system service worldwide is available
to LEO”
There are many existing launch vehicles that deploy payloads to LEO.
“(need nuclear rocket to DEEP SPACE).”
That’s simply not true. Every spacecraft that’s gone beyond Earth orbit, from Apollo to Voyager and from Lunar Surveyor to the Mars rovers, has done so without nuclear rockets.
“SHOW ME ANOTHER COMPANY OR COUNTRY LAUNCH SERVICE THAT CAN TRUMP SINGLE LIFT TONNAGE CAPACITY ATK SRB’s+LH/LOX NASA -right now!â€
The Shuttle (SRBs + LOX/LH2 SSMEs) only puts 20-25K kg into LEO. Multiple existing launch vehicles are capable of the same feat, from Ariane V, to the EELVs, to Proton.
“Wrong again…MINOR TOM.”
Take your meds.
Ugh…
Good Job putting that together Peter, Hilarious, I am coming down on the optimistic side too, “if you build it they will come” lol
It really will be easier to sell presidents on missions of you can give them completion dates realistically within there term, makes you wonder after we have heavy lift how long it would take Altair to go from paper to reality, If I remember right the lem was the last pie e of the Apollo package to get completed
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
“I was surprised that Rorabacher voted yes”
You must not have watched Giffords House hearings – Rohrabacher has been a consistent supporter of commercial crew.
I’m right now changing my focus to the Chinese launch of Chang’e 2 that will be launched within the next 1-3 days. That’s exiting. There is still hope for us that are interested in Moon exploration and exploration beyond LEO.
It will be like Mr Griffin said – the next man on the Moon will speak Chinese.
Moreover, I believe that ISS must be destroyed
“Question for Major Tom: If the Authorization holds that MSFC is to manage an HLV program, how will this work if NASA chooses a non-SDHLV in the form of an Atlas Phase 2 or Falcon X?”
First, I don’t think there’s any language in the authorization bill that dictates that MSFC is required to or recommended to manage the HLV. Maybe someone will correct me, but I’m pretty sure that I have that right.
But regardless, if you go down the EELV/commercial route, a new, big LOX/kerosene engine is needed. That would presumably become an MSFC job in terms of management or actual development work. Even Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX wouldn’t undertake such a $1B+ engine development itself, and it’s not clear that such a development would take place or be managed from any other NASA field center. (USAF might have a management role if they contributed enough to the effort.)
Additionally, if you read the FY11 budget, NASA was also considering other engine work, especially for a LOX/LH2 upper-stage, building on J-2X. Again, assuming that was deemed necessary for an EELV/commercial LOX/kerosene HLV, that would presumably be an MSFC-led effort. (Personally, I prefer the ACES solution — J-2X has a terribly long development schedule — but that’s me.)
The FY11 budget also detailed LOX/CH4 in-space engine work. That might go to GRC, but could also be MSFC-led.
This is why Shelby and the rest of the Alabama delegation’s resistance to the FY11 budget never made sense. From a parochial standpoint ($ and jobs in the state), the FY11 budget offered up to three new engine developments in Huntsville and expended EELV production in Decatur, versus one new engine development (J-2X) and some program management (Ares I) in Huntsville. The former is much more valuable, in real and comparative terms, than the latter.
If I was a member of the Alabama delegation, I’d be striking Shuttle-derived and Constellation-derived language left and right, trying to insert language that requires the HLV to be EELV-derived (vice Falcon or other commercial-derived vehicle ), trying to add money to those engine developments, and pulling as much of that engine work into MSFC as possible. I’d also be going after as many of the exploration technology demonstration and robotic precursor missions as I could get away with, too.
By tying themselves to the sinking Ares I/Constellation ship instead of supporting and grabbing everything that logically belonged to MSFC and ULA in the FY11 budget, the Alabama delegation missed a golden opportunity to set Huntsville and Decatur up for the next 10-20 years.
My 2 cents… hope it helps.
FWIW…
That’s exiting. There is still hope for us that are interested in Moon exploration and exploration beyond LEO.
One wonders if you follow, or even know about the ongoing Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission. You are no any more likely to see detailed results from Chang’e 2 than Chang’e 1. Post a link to their website if you ever find it.
@Amightywind
Of course I follow the LRO, but what I want to say (as you do not seem to understand) is that the Chinese seem to have a more coherent and long-term plan that will eventually result in a manned Moon landing.
Et preterea censeo ISS delenda est
Quick follow-up to my prior post with relevant HLV/MSFC comments from the Deputy Administrator’s press telecon today:
“Question: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords claimed that HLV is not buildable under this budget. Will you consider EELVs for heavy lift?
Answer: There are challenges in doing HLV given the budget and time frame. ‘I think the trade space continues to be open on what type of vehicle we will have….Right now all of that is in the mix.'”
“Question: Constellation people about to be laid off in Huntsville?
Answer: This bill won’t change any layoffs. Will begin develop future programs so that we can quickly start to re-employ people and have a clear direction.
HLV will be managed out of Marshall in Huntsville. Will look to that team to build the best HLV this nation ever has.”
parabolicarc.com/2010/09/30/lori-garver-praises-congress-discusses-nasas-future/
FWIW…
Alan Grayson is a liberal
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
It will be like Mr Griffin said – the next man on the Moon will speak Chinese.
That is very unlikely.
John G wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“Moreover, I believe that ISS must be destroyed”
I’d rather see it turned into a museum, mainly because that would mean that it has been superseded by newer/better space structures, and that there are enough tourists in space to visit it…![;-)](http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
I’m of the camp that sees the ISS as not only a place of space research, but that it also provides the “market demand” for crew/cargo services that will loosen NASA’s hold on space.
The U.S. will never be able to afford to expand into space if space continues to be treated as a Congressionally funded mission. Commercializing the services that are needed for the ISS will let new users of space leverage off of the NASA supply chain. In that sense, the total value of the ISS is not in what we get directly from the ISS, but also in the spinoffs from having to support it.
I work as the Flight Director for iconic Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin. I was browsing the web for space and science related articles and ran across your site. I’m reaching out to see if you’d have any interest in providing your readers with a link to a page on Buzz’s webpage that talks in depth about his Unified Space Vision – a 25 year plan that aims to put human on Mars!
http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/unified-space-vision/
We are in the planning stages of adding a newsfeed to be updated daily regarding space news and Buzz’s efforts in the space community. When this feature goes live we could provide you with the code so that you have access to the feed and could post it as a fun new feature on your own site!
In addition we have a vast collection of research, articles and information all related to Buzz’s efforts in the space community and I really think that your readers would appreciate knowing about another source of information on the subjects.
Let me know what you think. If you check out our site and find a page that is particularly related to something you’re doing please give me a heads up. I’d be more than happy to exchange the favor and link back to your page from ours.
Team Buzz
Those ready to dunk ISS should have shouted against it from the rafters when it was proposed. It is now an extant resource and should be utilized to the hilt.
If you are actually worried about Chinese on the Moon, consider a more likely scenario if the US pulls out of ISS. Japanese, European, Canadian, Russian and yes Chinese pull together sans US to continue space station activity. Maybe they wouldn’t pony up, but the temptation would be enormous.
Meantime, the authorization process has left NASA with an opportunity to get time-real and budget-honest with future congresses. Will they take this long moment to step off the merry-go-round of schedule and money fantasy? Will NASA tell congress, “If you want X, it truly will take Y years and cost Z dollars?”
RE: HLV/MSFC development work
Thanks for the quick answer, Major Tom. I hope NASA leans on the “as practicable” language in this Authorization (or that the Appropriation changes it), because this “minimum 70 ton/expandable to 130 ton” business is such an obvious effort to box us in to Shuttle-derived.
Failing that, if NASA absolutely must do SD, I’d rather them go with the bare-bones (and marginally affordable!) Shuttle-C and try to wiggle out of the “130-ton” model by dusting off some old Shuttle-Z blueprints and “promising” Congress they’ll build toward that.
JG: “Of course I follow the LRO, but what I want to say (as you do not seem to understand) is that the Chinese seem to have a more coherent and long-term plan that will eventually result in a manned Moon landing.”
There is no “manned Moon landing” in any of China’s funded plans. Planning for the Chang’e or Chinese Lunar Exploration Program (CLEP) doesn’t extend beyond a robotic sample return mission in the 2017 timeframe. Planning for Project 921, the current Chinese human space flight program, doesn’t extend beyond a Mir-sized space station circa 2020. Despite the 1960s-era “Red Scare” tactics that Griffin and Constellation supporters in Congress tried to employ, there is no evidence (reports, photographic, tests, etc.) that China is pursuing the key technologies (heavy lift, reentry from lunar trajectories, landers, etc.) for an initial human lunar effort. They may start pursuing those technologies someday, but that day is out in the 2020s at best given all the other activities they’re planning and pursuing first. See the following article for more info:
thespacereview.com/article/1565/1
Moreover, NASA’s FY11 budget request restored some of the Lunar Robotic Exploration Program (LREP) missions that Constellation cost growth ate, including a Teleoperated Lunar Polar Landing in 2015. It remains to be seen if that mission can still be afforded after the Senate HLV reduced the robotic precursor program budget.
Given the draw of the Google Lunar X PRIZE, the success of NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge, and interest from firms like Space Adventures and Bigelow, even if NASA lunar return efforts continue to stumble on pricey, poorly designed, and underfunded LV developments, I’d guess that American vehicles and astronauts (if not NASA vehicles and astronauts) will be back around or on the Moon before any non-existent and very slow-moving Chinese government efforts.
AW: “You are no any more likely to see detailed results from Chang’e 2 than Chang’e 1. Post a link to their website if you ever find it.”
The English version of the CLEP website is here:
clep.org.cn/index.asp?modelname=eng\en-news
FWIW…
I’ve noticed a number of people here repeatedly criticizing the ISS. I think this is a short-sighted waste of energy. True, with its huge expense, delayed schedule, and very little press about the value of research carried out on it, the ISS makes an easy target. Definitely, this could have been done better — at least in theory.
If we can stand back far enough to imagine it in historical perspective the fact that the ISS exists at all makes it so much more important than all of the theoretical “better†ways we might have done things. For all its flaws, it exists.
The ISS represents real experience at assembling and maintaining something in space. As a result, today there are engineers walking around who have learned the hard way what does and doesn’t work. That experience helps open the door to on-orbit assembly of deep space ships and orbital depots.
For those who imagine the possibility of a more unified humanity heading out to settle beyond the earth here is a project that brought together Japan, Russia, Canada, more than a dozen nations of Europe, as well as the United States. That isn’t just symbolic. We have all learned something about the practical reality of working together on something big. Oh, and contrary to what some writers post here, those other nations paid their way in real tax dollars contributed by their citizens — not as much as the U.S. perhaps, but in proportion to the amount they will get to use the station.
But perhaps the most profound and important near-term significance of the ISS is as a beachhead. Because we have to bring everything we need to gain a foothold in a hostile environment beachheads are historically very expensive. But there was no other way to land on Normandy and there is no other way to take the first steps into space. Any other beachhead would have been even further and harder.
Now that this beachhead has been established other good things can begin to happen. Only now that there exists a destination can we even be talking about NASA as a an “anchor†client for commercial crew and cargo. Only once the ISS exists does it become logical for Europe and Japan to develop their own ways to deliver cargo and ultimately crew. With that diversity comes redundancy, and only with sufficient redundancy will it be possible to entice investment in an infrastructure in space. Bigelow would be foolish to launch a destination only to be held hostage to a monopoly let alone a launch disaster.
For all its problems and costs the ISS is an essential beachhead. As an orbiting lab it is a place to look for antimatter and to test VASIMR. It is a destination to which the first commercial launch companies, like the often-cited first air mail pilots, can deliver cargo.
Back during the landings on Normandy, it was only when the beachhead was firmly established that it became possible to begin to go further. I think that is where we are today.
Ad Astra
Flight Director wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Hearing from ‘Team Buzz’ would be refreshing. However, the first question one would have to ask ‘Team Buzz’ is why Aldrin finds himself at odds with a majority of his Apollo-era colleagues on current matters at hand, space-related. Is it a matter of engineering vision or personal profit? One has to admire his efforts over the years trying to generate fresh interest in space but at times, it borders on the eccentric. Hosting WWF events and appearing on dancing shows seems more about promoting Buzz than space activities. Buzz ‘Mars cycler’ concept remains, in the view of this writer, a promising avenue to explore. ‘Space tourism’ less so.
How about Energia. It actually flew and delivered payloads to LEO (yes, Polyus had software problems and re-entered itself). It’s still available for manufacture if someone wants one.
Only problem is that there aren’t any payloads that NEED an HLV.
That’s a helluva resume item there amightywind. Makes you extremely qualified to talk about LVs.
For all its problems and costs the ISS is an essential beachhead. As an orbiting lab it is a place to look for antimatter and to test VASIMR. It is a destination to which the first commercial launch companies, like the often-cited first air mail pilots, can deliver cargo.
The reality of anti-matter is extremely well established and has been for over 60 years. That’s the problem with ISS research. It is grossly oversold. No research there is worth the money being spent on it with 2 orders of magnitude. America is getting fleeced.
The same is true for HLV.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
“It will be like Mr Griffin said – the next man on the Moon will speak Chinese.” That is very unlikely.” <- That is more likely than you may be willing to accept.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/china/piloted-lunar-landing.htm
But in your defense, it cheapens Griffin's credibility all the more to see him lamely-if-not-loosely paraphrasing Von Braun's declaration to Congress half a century ago about the 'next voice from space will undoubtably have a Russian accent.' Griffin fancies himself in von Braun's league when in actual fact, he's a legend in his own mind. Unlike Von Braun's reliable, sturdy, successful Saturn-class of LVs, Ares is a lousy rocket.
"Alan Grayson is a liberal." <- Yes, and God bless him for kicking conservative tail and taking names. Congress needs more like him.
KDP wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 4:43 pm “Back during the landings on Normandy, it was only when the beachhead was firmly established that it became possible to begin to go further.”
Actually, the ISS is more akin to that artifical harbor they build which a storm wiped out in a month. A beachhead is a beachhead and the ‘sand’ that needs more bootprints on it is the moon. The ‘ISS’ should have been anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms, 240,000 miles away, not sailing around and around overhead 300 miles up. It has been little more than a 20 year make-work project for the aerospace industry and yet to generate any real measure of value for the investment, unlike the HST.
“I hope NASA leans on the “as practicable†language in this Authorization (or that the Appropriation changes it), because this “minimum 70 ton/expandable to 130 ton†business is such an obvious effort to box us in to Shuttle-derived.”
No doubt that was the intent, but there are EELV- and commercially derived vehicles that can meet both targets.
Atlas V Phase 2 meets the 70t threshold. See slide 9 in the ULA presentation to the Augustine Committee at:
nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf
To meet the 130t target, Falcon X gets to 125t and Falcon XX gets to 140t. See the following Aviation Week article:
aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/05/07.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Unveils%20Heavy-Lift%20Vehicle%20Plan
At least on the basis of the lift capacity targets in the authorization bill, there’s no reason to keep the Apollo/Shuttle/Constellation workforce/infrastructure around. EELV and commercial vehicles have plans in place to evolve to those lift targets. And they’ll be less costly to NASA because those vehicle families spread their costs over a greater number of launches and customers.
I imagine that’s why you see the Deputy Administrator leaving the HLV trade space open when she was asked about EELV-derived HLVs in the press telecon earlier today. (See my earlier post.)
“Failing that, if NASA absolutely must do SD, I’d rather them go with the bare-bones (and marginally affordable!) Shuttle-C and try to wiggle out of the ‘130-ton’ model by dusting off some old Shuttle-Z blueprints and ‘promising’ Congress they’ll build toward that.”
IIRC, Shuttle Z only exceeds 80t (80,000kg+) lift capacity. I don’t think there’s any sidemount Shuttle-derived concept that gets to 100t, nevertheless 130t. You have to go inline to hit those targets with a Shuttle stack.
FWIW…
The risk of an EELV HLV is that it has a much better chance of success. The politicians will probably be happy as long as money continues to flow to their districts, regardless of whether anything ever flies. Spreading out the money over 5 seg boosters, J2-X and the rest slows everything down while keeping the politicians happy.
amightywind wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
“America is getting fleeced.”
Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
“The same is true for HLV.”
As it was on Ares I.
But at least the ISS is real, works, and we’re learning how to live and work in space by using it. KDP (post above) had a good point about the initial cost of a beachhead, or you could even call it a prototype.
You, Windy, and others, may place little weight on the operations part of doing stuff in space, but unless we learn both the good and bad ways things about living and working in space, then we’ll never work and live in space. It’s that simple.
If you want to expand humanities presence in space, then build on the ISS. Otherwise dunking it (or selling it to the Chinese) is a huge step backward.
My $0.02
It would be nice if ISS could organically grow into a Bigelow based complex. In that way NASA could claim victory and move on. And since NASA originally developed the inflatable technology such a claim wouldn’t be totally unjustified.
You have to go inline to hit those targets with a Shuttle stack.
What most people forget is that with side mounted boosters, whether they be hydrocarbon or solids, an SSME core stage will easily reach orbit. If you read the bill carefully you will find this little jewel :
(2) Flexibility- The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
Now, if the vehicle is ‘integrated’ into the payload then you can include the weight of the engines and the tank and any of the residual fuel, and thus the 70 tons is easily achieved. I’m pretty sure Lori and Charlie aren’t that stupid that they would toss away many tons of hardware after launching it all of the way into orbit. Thus the problem reduces to the foam insulation.
I’m pretty sure that can be solved in six years, and that opens up the way to fuel depots, in flight refueling, upper stage rendezvous, and a host of other interesting possibilities. The problem is that they have to come up with an answer in sixty days now, when the original heavy lift BAA initially called for a six month study effort. Apparently that BAA is off now, even though nobody in the commercial world trusts NASA studies any longer.
It is pretty clear that there is no real support for the program of record…and that any changes in course after this are pretty unlikely. More shuttle layoffs the death panels are meeting…
Robert G. Oler
“Now, if the vehicle is ‘integrated’ into the payload…”
That’s not what the language says. It states a preference for a “fully-integrated [sic] vehicle” (whatever that is — I’ve never heard of a partially integrated vehicle) that is capable of delivering payloads up to certain masses. The language doesn’t say anything about payload/vehicle integration. This is especially clear when you read the rest of the paragraph, which makes references to integration of core elements and upper stages, but not payloads.
And, honestly, it doesn’t really matter since the language is subject the “to the extent practicable” and “as soon as practicable” qualifiers.
FWIW…
“More shuttle layoffs the death panels are meeting…”
For better or worse, despite all the political haranguing, none of it has stopped the drumbeat of Shuttle and Constellation layoffs, like the 900 USA employees that will be let go tomorrow:
cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/september/156845/How-the-new-NASA-plan-will-affect-Space-Coast-economy
FWIW…
That’s not what the language says. It states a preference for a “fully-integrated [sic] vehicleâ€
I’ve never heard of a non-fully integrated vehicle. And absent any hardware or mission or indeed any upper stage to deliver, then the only thing left to deliver is the fuel in the vehicle, and the vehicle itself, since they won’t be delivering astronauts either. There are lots of ways to implement that without violating the language, and also lots of ways of doing it without any SRBs.
That would requires some outside input on the sixty day study however.
Fermilab near Chicago does a lot of work with antimatter but it’s very hard to produce even microscopic amounts. I haven’t heard anything about antimatter going to ISS.
Also, per NASAWatch, 400+ ATK Shuttle and Ares I layoffs are coming (of course, ATK’s stock went up on today’s news):
reuters.com/article/idCNN3020429020100930?rpc=44
150-250 Ares I layoffs in Huntsville this Friday:
blog.al.com/breaking/2010/09/more_huntsville_layoffs_loom_a.html
Another 1,200 from the Shuttle program this Friday:
cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/30/congress.nasa/
And 800 from Michoud:
businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IIEGPG0.htm
FWIW…
Thanks again for the great links, Major Tom. One quibble”
RE: Shuttle Z
According to Jenkins’ Space Shuttle book, page 460:
“The need for a heavy lift vehicle to support various Exploration Initiatives led directly to the Shuttle Z proposal. This vehicle looked much like a Shuttle-C Block II on steroids. A launch capability of 300,000 pounds to LEO was envisioned using a payload shroud with a clear volume of 40 x 60 feet.”
First stage was 4 SSMEs and 2 ASRM.
ASRM
Heh, funny you should mention the ASRM just as I was thinking about it. With a bit of luck 5 seg booster development will delay an operational SDLV and then go the way of the ASRM, which was cancelled more than halfway through.
I should add that the second stage (or third stage, depending on how you count stages) of the Shuttle-Z had an uprated SSME (Jenkins gives no numbers for thrust or ISP) powering the massive payload canister.
As Spacex’s Supreme Fan Boy lol, I’m glad for once Elon stayed out of things and let the chips fall on this vote. Spacex has a lot to accomplish on it’s own and it seems that they are for now focused on Falcon 9 becoming a reliable launcher and Dragon Cargo. The time for fighting is over. All the players, for now, have a part to play. It seems NASA has found it’s way with a new launcher and commercial has a future. It’s time to make peace.
Orion will fly on Delta IV many more times than on an SDLV
This truly is a compromise in that neither side gets everything they wanted. I was on the Constellation side, so I am glad that the Orion CEV (or equivalent) will be built for HSF BEO ops. Whatever is the most cost effective launcher to support BEO ops, that’s what I’m for. Delta, Atlas, Ares, Shuttle derived, whatever, let’s just get on with it. I really think the Moon makes more sense as an HSF BEO destination than an asteroid, and I like Chris Kraft’s and Paul Spudis’ reasons for this. Whatever we do, we need to keep ‘em flying or we will stagnate. I’m OK with “commercial” space taxi to ISS if it’s feasible and cheaper. But please, let commercial be an augmentation to BEO HSF if they can pull it off, not a replacement for 50+ years of HSF ops expertise. The original WH FY11 budget shi*t canned BEO HSF development or at least kicked so far down the road as to be effectively terminated. At least now we still have BEO CEV being funded.
So now we have some money for hardware elements. What remains is to integrate these elements into something that will support a well defined milestone or mielstones that are less than 10 years in the future. Anything beyond that is just a bunch of handwaving and meaningless feel good talk.
Finally, I will miss the shuttle quite a bit. A Mach 25 spaceplane that lands on a runway – way ahead of its time – it built the space station and demonstrated in orbit repair of a complex orbiting astronomy observatory (Hubble) in the payload bay. The space ops learned in the Shuttle era were hard earned. It was money well spent, in my opinion. Yes, it didn’t launch every two weeks and it was a LEO only machine but it will be a long time before any HSF system achieves the shuttle launch rates or provides the versatility of crew and cargo. And the remaining orbiters have a lot of useful life left. A shame we are throwing this all away and couldn’t keep a few flying to bridge the dreaded “gap’ before we have a follow on system.
My 2 cents worth.
Ferris, generally, those on the liberal side (unless one has a NASA or contractor facility in their district) have been anti-space over the years. Proxmire was the most notorious, but Mondale was too, and some of the current members of the House can be counted on to vote against any NASA project, and except for Ron Paul, they usually come from that side of the asile. (Frank, Conyers, etc.) Paul votes against just about everything-why do you think they call him “Dr. No.”? Btw, did you check out the links to Bolden’s lease comments in an earlier thread?
I agree with the above comment: the arguing is now over, so now let’s get on with it. I was a Constellation and Moon First person, and I wanted it to succeed. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out, and it’s being put to rest. Ed Crawley “made the sale” for me (see his presentation on FlexPath at NASA’s youtube channel), and he at least gave the impression that going to the Moon before Mars will be back on the agenda later on (hopefully as soon as 2013 with a successor administration). Everyone got something in the new act just passed, the commercial sector can get started, we have Orion and HLV so that when it’s built and tested, we can start going places, even if we don’t land at first. The R&D effort goes ahead, and the precursor missions can go as well (not as many as originally wanted, but some, at least). If L-M is right, and Orion can be flight-ready in ’13, let’s hope there’s a human-rated rocket to fly it. Use that for ISS crew rotation until the Commercial contractors get up and flying. Then go BEO. My first choice would be lunar orbit-not once, but several times, then Plymouth Rock and L-points, then boots on the lunar surface. Then we can talk about Mars flyby/orbit/moons.
Mr. Wiser
Sorry, but no, I don’t agree that its been true, over the years. Yes, you can make a claim about specific legislatures,but I submit it isn’t close to being a generalization.
For example, Dingell voted for it. Weiner voted for it. Pelosi voted for it. Wasserman-Schutlz voted for the bill. Tom Perriello voted for it. Sestak voted for it.
I can go on. Yes, there are some in the past who have been more against it than others. But I submit that you can’t make that claim.
Consider that Boehner voted against the bill. Hokestra voted against the bill. McCotter voted against the bill.
I can go on.
Concerning the earlier thread – the link to the page (not the video) went to a “we cannot find the webpage you are looking for”
I’ll watch the video later tomorrow (been busy)
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
“generally, those on the liberal side (unless one has a NASA or contractor facility in their district) have been anti-space over the years. ”
I live in an area that is heavy on defense work and installations (included a fair amount of space work), and I have a Republican representative. My rep, who is very conservative, voted against the Senate bill last night.
I think that disproves your argument.
Not necesarily true, Ron. Look at the other GOP members who voted against it. I’ll bet that most voted against the legislation because they’re anti-Obama (just as there were Democrats who voted against Constellation because they were anti-Bush). Ron Paul is the gadlfy-he votes against just about everything unless it ties in with his pet causes. He’s been the sole “no” vote too many times to count. This might be the first time that Bohener and Kucinich voted on the same side (they’re complete opposites on just about everything, but when GRC lost some work…..).
Giffords voted against it because she was one of those who didn’t want to see Constellation go. (she was the only one to voice opposition during floor debate) Maybe a last favor to Mike Griffin (who can shut up and go back to academia)?
Tom: check Bolden’s comments during the past year: he’s said on several times that he would like the first BEO mission to be a lunar orbit mission (a redux of Apollo 8). Not quite a landing, but stuff can be done in lunar orbit in the meantime. After Plymouth Rock, though….then we’ll get boots on the ground.
Ferris: that’s weird. I was there today and it was still up.
“Then go BEO. My first choice would be lunar orbit-not once, but several times…”
How do you justify the cost of several billion?
Mr.Wiser,
Can you give me the title of the page (I can probably search for it)
“Giffords voted against it because she was one of those who didn’t want to see Constellation go. (she was the only one to voice opposition during floor debate) Maybe a last favor to Mike Griffin (who can shut up and go back to academia)? ”
No, it was a nod to her husband, who will probably look for a job at ATK when he retires.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
“ If L-M is right, and Orion can be flight-ready in ’13, let’s hope there’s a human-rated rocket to fly it.”
Hope is nice to have, but money is required.
And oops, there is no money in the Senate bill for the SLS launcher to fly Orion in 2013, or 2014, or 2015. They hope the SLS will fly in 2016, but remembering that money thing (it’s required), it doesn’t look like they allocated enough to make that happen.
Congress could easily fix that by funding the Delta IV Heavy upgrades for $1.3B, but they haven’t. The funds wouldn’t come out of the $1.6B commercial crew account because the commercial folks don’t need any heavy launchers. Also remember that the Senate bill specifically states that the SLS is to have:
“The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.”
Commercial cargo (COTS/CRS) is already moving forward with two suppliers. Commercial crew would likely fund two or more suppliers too, so a lot would have to go wrong to trigger the need for the SLS to backup “commercial or partner-supplied vehicles”.
Based on all of that, and the recent history of the Constellation program (i.e. program schedule slips), I think the Orion/MPCV capsule won’t be flying before 2017, if then.
Notice too I said Orion/MPCV capsule. Unless I’ve missed something, only one capsule has been funded so far. I just thought I’d point that out, since one capsule means that the NASA crew capability is one accident away from going away – think about that…
I’m just glad the bill passed and that the NASA cycle of boom-bust has, at least is some ways, been broken. Encouraging commercial cargo and crew is a fine first step. Watching the missions build over the next 5 years, while Orbital, Bigelow, Boeing, and SpaceX finish development and testing for LEO services, should keep us entertained.
I would like to watch live feeds from the ESA Moon Lander, and whatever landers we send to the Moon to scout out polar ice and the skylights in the lava tubes. There’s a lot of exploration to be done over the next 5-7 years, made possible by President Obama’s mustering of the Augustine Committee.
No matter that he reached for more than he got, because what he got has me very happy indeed.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
“I’ll bet that most voted against the legislation because they’re anti-Obama”
Republicans putting politics before principle? So in other words, you’re saying that Republicans are no different than Democrats. Well, that will make deciding on candidates for the November election a lot easier now – thanks Matt!
Oh, and regarding Ron Paul, quirky as some of his positions may be, at least he votes his principles, which is something the other members of his party sometimes have a hard time doing, especially when they are in power.
“According to Jenkins’ Space Shuttle book, page 460:
“The need for a heavy lift vehicle to support various Exploration Initiatives led directly to the Shuttle Z proposal. This vehicle looked much like a Shuttle-C Block II on steroids. A launch capability of 300,000 pounds to LEO…”
Astronautix says 87.5K kg and 193K lbs., or 88 metric tons and 97 US tons, to LEO.
astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlez.htm
I’m guessing Jenkins is counting the mass of the upper stage as payload, which would be misleading when comparing to other launch systems.
FWIW…
“Tom: check Bolden’s comments during the past year: he’s said on several times that he would like the first BEO mission to be a lunar orbit mission (a redux of Apollo 8). Not quite a landing, but stuff can be done in lunar orbit in the meantime. After Plymouth Rock, though….then we’ll get boots on the ground.”
Uh, okay. Not sure what this was in response to. Fine by me.
FWIW…
Ferris, have you put together a list of Republicans and conservatives who voted against? If so, I’d like to see it. Particularly if it includes a rationale…
Aerospace Engineer wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 10:04 pm “Finally, I will miss the shuttle quite a bit. A Mach 25 spaceplane that lands on a runway – way ahead of its time – it built the space station and demonstrated in orbit repair of a complex orbiting astronomy observatory (Hubble) in the payload bay.” <– The country will miss it too, as well, in a few years.
amightywind wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 10:05 am <- It's more of the same, Windy. Treading water. Paper plans. Make work for the next half decade. Promises of programs and projects to come. It's a hard reality but this is most likely the 'new normal' for NASA as the Age of Austerity hits home– and it's not particularly inspiring– especially to the young. Their future is most likely in developing commerical manned space into a reality- and making it as routine as shuttle flights. Once that goal is achieved, the era of big budget government funded space projects will finally be bookended. Otherwise, it's going to take another 'sputnik moment' to get the country and the government agency moving more adroitly along the path as layed out by Chris Kraft some weeks ago. Until then, dream of lassoing candy-cane asteroids and peppermint LaGrange points along with moon pie space elevators and chocolate-covered solar sails.
Rand – I’ll pass one on when I do it this weekend.
Real Life is going to take more of a precedent now, rather than my activism.
@ Jason Malkin,
It isn’t. However, STS-134 will be carrying a sensor to the ISS, the Alpha Magnetometric Spectrometer (AMS), that will be used to detect antimatter in space (amongst other exotica not visible using conventional ground or orbit-based sensors) by its microwave emissions.
AMS is a good example of how NASA is still working with ‘bleeding edge’ technology. The STS-134 mission has had to be delayed six months into early 2011 because of problems with the sensor’s cooling system.
Rand,
This list of yeas and nays on the authorization bill was posted at Clark’s hobbyspace site:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll561.xml
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italics)
“AMS is a good example of how NASA is still working with ‘bleeding edge’ technology. The STS-134 mission has had to be delayed six months into early 2011 because of problems with the sensor’s cooling system.”
Not really. AMS is a Department of Energy project-bought and paid for by DOE with a contract to NASA for the integration work-DOE has not been too pleased; NASA started charging for integration fifteen years ago; NASA contracted with Lockheed for the integration services. The on-orbit mission was to have started around 2001. NASA kept charging even though every year NASA would delay the launch by another year.
It would appear that the USA does not think it has competitors in this bill. Constellation should have been preserved. Obama made a big mistake. The moon is a big air craft carrier and you just handed it to the Chinese, whose economy is no 2 in the world.
The moon is not militarily important
“The moon is a big air craft carrier…”
The Moon has no atmosphere. Think before you post.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm:
It would be nice if ISS could organically grow into a Bigelow based complex. In that way NASA could claim victory and move on. And since NASA originally developed the inflatable technology such a claim wouldn’t be totally unjustified.
Yes it would be nice, but that is rather self-limiting. ISS is a good start, but it’s usefulness beyond the 2025 frame is questionable. I think it would be really cool to be able to add Bigelow modules to ISS, but ISS is going to wear out sooner or later. Since it was designed to rely heavily on logistics support from the shuttle (on the US side), the large spare parts will eventually be used with no way to replace them. I think it would be better for Bigelow to keep concentrating on it’s own Sundancer/BA330 complex. I forsee a constellation of those in orbit by the time the ISS has to take a dip in the South Pacific.
Yeah, it may not make a lot of technical sense, but I was thinking more of the politics. It would get rid of the ISS, but retain a permanent presence in LEO which could be used as a spaceport without loss of face on the part of NASA.
Byeman wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Orion will fly on Delta IV many more times than on an SDLV
I know this sounds crazy, but why not try and fly it on both?
Aerospace Engineer wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Finally, I will miss the shuttle quite a bit. A Mach 25 spaceplane that lands on a runway – way ahead of its time – it built the space station and demonstrated in orbit repair of a complex orbiting astronomy observatory (Hubble) in the payload bay. The space ops learned in the Shuttle era were hard earned. It was money well spent, in my opinion.
Amen. We are going to find that we really do miss the shuttle. I agree that it was way ahead of it’s time. I hope this will open the door for someone to develop a true reusable spaceplane one day with lessons learned from shuttle as a baseline.
STEVEN wrote @ October 1st, 2010 at 9:48 am
“The moon is a big air craft carrier and you just handed it to the Chinese, whose economy is no 2 in the world.”
So it appears you belong to two camps of space-related positions:
A. The “If we don’t go then “they” will” camp, with the Chinese being the “they”.
B. The “We don’t need an HLV to return to the Moon” camp, since the Chinese don’t have an HLV, and are not planning one, but you feel they can takeover the Moon anyways.
I’m with you on the second (i.e. no HLV needed), but not on the first.
RocketBuilder wrote @ October 1st, 2010 at 10:48 am
“…but ISS is going to wear out sooner or later. Since it was designed to rely heavily on logistics support from the shuttle (on the US side), the large spare parts will eventually be used with no way to replace them.”
Any payload the Shuttle could lift, Delta IV Heavy can lift also. In fact the Shuttle never maxed out on it’s potential capacity, so Delta IV Heavy has capacity for a tug module that would deliver the payload to the ISS. And that payload could be pressurized or unpressurized, just like with the Shuttle.
Just because we didn’t NEED other ways to support transport of large equipment to the ISS doesn’t mean that the Shuttle is the ONLY way. It wouldn’t be technically challenging to change out the ATV/HTV pressurized modules with unpressurized ones, and the maneuvering systems have already been proven out.
There is nothing stopping us from maintaining or expanding the current ISS, or building more with the current launchers families.
I know this sounds crazy, but why not try and fly it on both?
Two at twice the price!
Can you all see that this endless, pointless dithering has cost the US two years of progress.
Windy,
I couldn’t agree more about this dithering, but why not build a block upgrade approach with a CEV? You can get early test flights on a Delta IV and if the Delta is ever human rated, you automatically can meet the Congressional requirement of a gov’t backup to LEO. Once the capsule is developed and flown, how hard would it then be to upgrade it for BEO missions launching on an HLV? It seems like a logical path to me, but most of the times logic and politcs are mutually exclusive.
As an engineer, I am very much into the test as you fly, fly as you test spiral development approach. If it worked on the Saturn (ie evolution from Redstone to Jupiter to Saturn I to Saturn V) and seems to be working with your enemy Musk (Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 to Cargo Dragon launched on Falcon 9 to one day manned Dragon on Falcon 9).
I know your shares in ATK are taking a hit, but that doesn’t give you the right to complain when other paths become available that are more cost effective and efficient than what a STS-derived approach would yield. I was a huge supporter of Constellation as well as a worker bee on it, but I saw things on the inside of the program that would make any engineer worth his or her salt cringe at the prospect of this development ever get off the ground.
Also, Constellation was never, ever mentioned by Bush after the launch of the VSE. Wouldn’t you think that his pet project would deserve a Presidential champion to help keep it going and fight for the funds that did not come? Congress simply appropriated CRs and other junk that caused the program to slip further and further until we have this miscarriage before us. Now at least we can pick up the pieces and have meaningful discussions about what CAN be done.
All this pointless dithering is just that, and I have been trolling this site for a long time looking for useful discussion. Sometimes there is, but alot of times there is just partisan hot air. Get a grip man, Constellation is dead. I have already been through my stages of grief and have moved on, I suggest you do the same.
STEVEN wrote:
“It would appear that the USA does not think it has competitors in this bill. Constellation should have been preserved. Obama made a big mistake. The moon is a big air craft carrier and you just handed it to the Chinese, whose economy is no 2 in the world.”
China has a trillion dollars in the bank, if they were truely interested in the moon they could do an Apollo program of their own.. they are doing nothing even close. They have did three manned flights for a total of 6 people in space over the course of almost a decade.. You should sign up for Stephen Cobert’s “keep fear alive” march on the mall in washington.
“Also, Constellation was never, ever mentioned by Bush after the launch of the VSE.”
A nit but an important one… when President Bush rolled out the VSE, Constellation did not exist. O’Keefe was still NASA Administrator. It would be another year or so until Griffin become Administrator, undertook ESAS, and rolled out Constellation (without the help of the President or any other White House officials).
FWIW…
RocketBuilder wrote:
I have been trolling this site for a long time looking for useful discussion. Sometimes there is, but alot of times there is just partisan hot air.
Then you haven’t been trolling. (I know!) Technically you’ve been lurking. Congratulations! You’ve delurked. Read and comprehend this:
http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/t/TheJargonLexicon.html
before you ever post again. Do not use the familiar form of my handle, as I have never responded to you before. As for the partisan hot air, isn’t politics mostly that, arguing to get your way?
I don’t own ATK, as I’ve stated numerous times. The PE is too high and they don’t pay a dividend. I am a value investor.
Major Tom: a good nit to pick, I should have worded it better. The main point I was trying to make was that if Bush was such a huge supporter of his VSE, why did he never mention again? I guess he must have been confident enough in Griffin trying to keep it sold for him. I will still never forget though the day I was in a NASA meeting and we were told to no longer call it the Vision for Space Exploration, and to call it the US Space Exploration Strategy… Ah politics.![:)](http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Amightywind: I stand corrected, I have “delurked”. You are wise to not own ATK.
The roll call votes generally don’t give a rationale: all they give is who voted yea or nay, and who were not voting. You’d have to check each individual member who voted against it and then go to their web sites to see if any statements about the vote were posted. Giffords and those from Ohio who voted no; their reasons are pretty self-explanatory.
Ron Paul at the very least is quirky. At most, he’s naive and downright irresponsible. (usually in matters of defense and foreign affairs). I’m just glad he’s not my congressman.
Ferris: here you go with two sources: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/037.html
and: http://www.technologyreview.com//blog/deltav/25167/
Lori Garver was on space.com: she was saying that lunar missions will be a part of the new program despite the loss of Constellation. I’d rather hear from Bolden rather than her, though….there were those who wanted her to fall on her sword after the Senate Bill came out and she was seen as clinging to the original FY 11 request. her comments are at:
http://www.space.com/news/nasa-says-moon-exploration-not-dead-100930.html
Mr. Wiser – I have read the 2 links you have provided. A few things of note
1. One of the articles is quite early in the year, and I think it pre-dates the discussion of taxi-cab model vs car rental model
2. In neither link does he indicate a preference for car rental over taxi cab. I will grant that in the later article, he talks about renting the spacecraft, but I don’t agree that it has to follow that model, nor do I believe its an endorsement of that version of operating.
Finally, why should Lori have fallen on her sword over this? She’s done a good job. And the moon has never been off the table
Ferris, check the Orlando Sentinel from the time those other two lease articles came around: Bolden was being questioned during a House hearing about the original FY 11 request, and the lease topic did come up. I googled ‘NASA Bolden Lease” and the two articles above, plus the Orlando one, came up.
I agree that the moon has never been off the table, contrary to what some claim. Said it earlier, but I”ll repeat, but a lot of the anger over the original request-and the botched rollout-would’ve been softened if NASA leadership had said something along the lines of “This new program will enable us to go to the moon, asteroids, and Mars. Just because we’re canceling Constellation doesn’t mean we’re not going back to the moon and landing. It’s just that there are other destinations for humans besides the moon that we want to visit as well.” Perception, though, was that NASA was leaving the moon to others, and thus the hostility to the new program. Remember Bolden’s remark about not caring if someone else beat us back, and a congressman replying “It does to me.”? And perception counts when you’re trying to get Congressional approval. Not just for NASA, but any government agency that wants to cancel a program and do something different. Look at DOD, for example. Very hard to cancel a program there once it’s started. See the F-22, for example. There was also the perception that Garver was the driving force behind the new program, wanting to turn all HSF, not just LEO, to the private sector. No telling how many enemies she made on the Hill and elsewhere because of that.
As I said, only one of them is from quite early on in the process. I don’t believe the question of taxi cab vs rental car came up early in discussion – that was a later discussion, which I know had come up by the time he addressed COMSTAC, but I dont’ know how soon (cause he talked about taxi-cab at COMSTAC). I am not seeing the sentinel article you are referring to. But I am still not seeing a “I prefer rental car over taxi cab” coming out of Bolden’s mouth. I do see him talking about different models to consider, to different people. I will listen to the MIT thing tomorrow. Finally, again, even if he prefers it (which I don’t grant at this time), I woudl still like to hear a real justification for it.
With regard toGarver – honestly, I doubt it would’ve made one bit of difference. Because the people really complaining about the situation, in Congress, could care less about destination. For them, it was always about their districts. Thats why Schiff defended it, and Hatch opposed it. The enemies made weren’t because they picked one target over another – its because they weren’t buying off the specific districts & states.
As far as asking for her to fall on her sword – again, why? I honestly believe she can do a good job.
If Obama really wants to give them bowel movements, appoint someone like Pete Worden or Steve Isakowitz as NASA admin – you can bet that they’ll wish they had Garver.
actually, Isakowitz isn’t a real scare – Worden, though – you can bet, that would scare em
There was also the perception that Garver was the driving force behind the new program, wanting to turn all HSF, not just LEO, to the private sector.
That was always an idiotic perception. There’s no way any intelligent person could have inferred it from anything anyone in the administration said, or from the budget itself.
There were congressmen and senators saying just that. Along with a number of former astronauts.
A lot of factors at work here: desire to protect one’s constitutents, anger at not being consulted or advised prior to rollout (Bolden’s admitted that failure was his fault in the last Senate hearing), distrust of the commercial sector being able to do what they’re being asked to do, and so on.
All it takes to put the moon back on the agenda for a landing before the asteroid mission is confirmed intelligence that the ChiComs (or Russia, or India, take your pick) have a lunar landing program in the works. The pressure on NASA to get back first would be intense from the Hill.
There were congressmen and senators saying just that. Along with a number of former astronauts.
Was that supposed to be a response to what I said? Those former astronauts were octogenerians who hadn’t been paying attention to what was going on, and were energized by the clueless, or the venal. And many congressmen are idiots.
Yes, Rand, it was. And many of those speaking in opposition were on the relevant House and Senate committees that deal with NASA, not just those affected because of Constellation work in their home states. Not to mention former astronauts, and not just the old Apollo hands. I remember that Eileen Collins, Mike Foale, Tom Wilson, and a number of Shuttle-only astronauts were dead set against the original plan that was rolled out. Granted, there were astronauts with Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle experience that did speak in favor of it, which points out that no community is of one mind on any given subject. But during the debate, none of those astronauts in favor (Buzz Aldrin in particular) were asked to testify in any hearings on the Hill. They may have met with individual congresscritters and staff, but that’s it, in all likelihood. Had Buzz gone and been on that panel with Neil, Gene, and Norm Augustine, it would’ve offered balance to what Neil and Gene were offering in terms of testimony, along with Jim Lovell’s written testimony (he couldn’t make it in person).
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 2nd, 2010 at 11:12 pm <- Inaccurate. Always wise to listen to those who've actually accomplished something in their profession over 80 years of life experience, Musketeer.
And so? I mean, stop the presses – a congressman said something that wasn’t true. Because it wasn’t true that Lori wanted to all of HSF to the private sector
And the fact that they weren’t asked to testify says something more about congress, rather than the administration. Like they don’t want to have a real debate.
Had Buzz gone and been on that panel with Neil, Gene, and Norm Augustine, it would’ve offered balance to what Neil and Gene were offering in terms of testimony, along with Jim Lovell’s written testimony (he couldn’t make it in person).
And why do you suppose that Buzz didn’t do that?
Because Buzz knew he would’ve been in the Lion’s den, pure and simple. But he would’ve had the opportunity to explain his support for the new program, and taken whatever heat came his way. Like Harry Truman said: “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the Kitchen.”
Ferris: again, the issue was one of perception. As long as the administration’s original plan was perceived as being anti-HSF, or that Garver was seen as the driving force behind that, the opposition to the administration’s proposals can be explained to some degree. Bolden admitted that he hadn’t been able to brief Senators and Congressmen before the rollout, and that he ignored advice from his PR people on how to handle the rollout. Both of which Bolden took the rap for. Even after POTUS’ speech at the Cape, there was still significant opposition, which resulted in the Senate’s own plan, which was passed by both houses and will be signed into law.
Because Buzz knew he would’ve been in the Lion’s den, pure and simple.
Bzzzzzzzt…
Thanks for playing. And revealing your utter ignorance of how Congressional hearings work.
Buzz didn’t do that because he wasn’t invited.
Matt Wiser wrote @ October 3rd, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Rand Simberg asked – “And why do you suppose that Buzz didn’t do that?”
You said – “Because Buzz knew he would’ve been in the Lion’s den, pure and simple.”
Unfortunately, not so pure and simple.
Matt, do you know who chooses the people that testify in front of Congress? Once you find that out, you’ll understand why Buzz did not testify.
Oh, and considering how much media exposure Buzz has had recently, I don’t think you can call him shy, and he certainly has defended his ideas in front of much smarter people than Senators and Congressmen.
“As long as the administration’s original plan was perceived as being anti-HSF”
You fail to understand that part of the reason it was perceived that way was because opponents of the plan pushed that idea.
NASA’s comparison charts showing the number of HSF days in space between Constellation and their proposed budget was ignored by those that wanted Constellation, and instead they labeled it as “abandoning” space. Just because NASA et al had bad initial marketing doesn’t mean you have to drink the opponents Kool-Aid.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 4th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Nice set up Rand.
You certainly point up the fact that important information should be verified and validated if one wants to use it as the foundation of an important argument.