Next week Congress will return in a lame duck session, seeking to pass a number of bills including outstanding FY2011 appropriations bills. Among those returning are a number of lame ducks who lost their reelection bids, including Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), whose district includes KSC. Kosmas tells the Orlando Sentinel Saturday that she plans to make full funding for NASA in FY11 “one of my highest priorities” in her final days in Congress. She’s concerned that Republicans will seek to make spending cuts in the FY11 bills that could strip hundreds of millions from the $19 billion that’s in both the administration’s original request for the agency and the authorization bill signed into law last month. “If the Republican pledge to roll back all federal spending goes through, then thousands of jobs on the Space Coast will be at risk, and I will fight in the remaining weeks to ensure that NASA is not cut,” she told the Sentinel.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is not a lame duck—he is just two years into his first six-year term—but he is also promising to make NASA a priority in Congress. “I’m hoping to pick up the baton,” he said in a meeting at NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia, the Daily Press of Hampton Roads reports, referring to how the state’s congressional delegation has not been as vocal in its support for NASA as other states, like Florida and Texas. He added that the authorization act provides the “right balance” between government and commercial initiatives. (Hopefully in any future support Sen. Warner provides for NASA in Congress he looks more energetic than in the photo in the Daily Press article, where he appears a bit bored, or maybe just tired.)
While Warner might think the NASA authorization strikes an appropriate balance, Gene Kranz and Jim Lovell don’t think so. They told an audience in Amarillo that the government “has lost the direction”, in Lovell’s words, as reported by the Globe-News. Lovell, the article states, supports commercialization, “but worries the government will waste money by investing in unproven initiatives.” (No doubt some people felt the same way about Constellation, though.) Kranz added he’s concerned today’s youth don’t care about space as much as previous generations: “I’m scared to see the day when a fifth-grader comes into class and doesn’t know what an astronaut is.”
….that government “has lost the direction”.
This is silly. You can’t lose something you never had. Governments don’t lead and don’t set direction.
They wait till there is a horrific accident at a busy intersection, and then, only after much warning by the public of the dangers of this “traffic-light-less” intersection, do they appropriate funds for a traffic light.
Wonder if the lame duckers can create a poison pill bill that, in the event the future Republican House majority attempts to cut NASA’s budget beyond the authorization act recommendations, will create some unwanted ‘poison’ for the Republicans.
Now thats setting direction!
Gene Kranz said “I’m scared to see the day when a fifth-grader comes into class and doesn’t know what an astronaut is.â€
I think there are more worrisome problems in the world, but I understand why he’s saying it. I am so glad that Congress decided that Constellation was not going to help that 5th grader remember what astronauts were, since we would have been out of space for a decade or more before the Altair was ever going to land astronauts on the Moon. Too long out of space.
For Jim Lovell’s comments, he definitely harkens back to a time when NASA was actually building things and getting them into space. That time has passed, since Shuttle is mainly run by contractors, and Constellation showed that NASA doesn’t mind cost overruns and schedule slips. Something needs to change, and NASA has not learned the lessons of Constellation (no direction or budget from NASA to do so).
I don’t see commercial firms as the answer to everything, but with the right balance, NASA can do what it wants utilizing the strengths of the existing commercial launch industry, and do it for less. Not cheap, but less than NASA can do on it’s own, and if the commercial sector is doing it, then they add marketing muscle to the mix, which brings in new customers and expands the market into space. NASA doesn’t do marketing, so with them in the lead, we will be stuck with space programs, not a space marketplace.
The government has lost direction. Elections have consequences. In the last 2 years the lunatic fringe of anti-Constellation radicals and space nihilists had their day in the sun. They succeeded in derailing the exploration program. Now our sorry nation is reduced to hitching rides to our own space station with our eternal enemy Russia. The Republic breathes a collective sigh of relief as this ruinous 111th congress slouches toward adjournment. The titans of spaceflight (Lovell, Kranz, …) are rightly concerned. Although it is preferable to Obamaspace, compromise that emerged from congress is absurd. A restructured HSF program will have to wait for a new President. And, as we have all argued here, to survive it must be executed quickly.
Interesting notes, since the authorization bill had strong direction from the Senate we can hope that the appropriations will go along with that. Rand has pointed out though that the authorization does not constrain the appropriations! What a system we have where the two are not the same.
And do you wonder what West Texas A&M did to get a retired Apollo astronaut and a retired flight director? Were they driving through to another appointment? Doing a tour of small schools? And it is partly due to the Kranz management style of “the team works best under extreme pressure” that we had the loss of Columbia and Challenger. Program managers need to know when to say that their team is working at capacity, and that they cannot meet everyone’s needs.
Hopefully future fifth graders will know what an astronaut is, one thing that is certain is that they will know what a cosmonaut is.
“Kranz added he’s concerned today’s youth don’t care about space as much as previous generations: “I’m scared to see the day when a fifth-grader comes into class and doesn’t know what an astronaut is.â€â€
With all due respect to the accomplishments over the career of Kranz from the Cold War days of Apollo, he should be more alarmed that fifth graders in 2010 have poor writing skills; are not learning other languages beside their native tongue; have more interest in texting on their mobile cells than learning about the living cells in their own bodies; shows little interest in math and go home at night to see their college-degreed fathers and/or mothers fret about being unemployed for months, under employed or not being able to find fulfilling work at a good salary while government employees (such as Kranz) were well paid and now languish in comfortable retirement on lavish government pensions. Yet the kids are all a whiz on computers- most likely as fascile as Kranz’s own MSC teams were with computers, circa 1969.
Perhaps Mr. Kranz would do well to stop talking to local newspapers with little impact, like those of West Texas, and give up the lucrative speaking tours available to him and start visiting and talking to grade schools across the U.S. for free. And drag Tom Hanks along with him as a sweetener. As opposed to seeing aging astronauts make fools of themselves hosting wrestling events or appearing on ‘Dancing With The Stars.†The late Wally Schirra made a point of visiting local schools around the San Diego area, where he lived, before he passed away. Those kids learned what an astronaut was first hand, not by watching them ‘moonwalk’ across their TV screens, cutting a rug, eh, Buzz. C’mon, Gene, get Lovell and Cernan to come along and tell kids first hand what it’s all about.
amightywind wrote @ November 13th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
“Now our sorry nation is reduced to hitching rides to our own space station with our eternal enemy Russia.”
Where have you been for the last 10 years?
The only reason we’ve had 10 years of continuous U.S. human presence in space has been because of Russia and their Soyuz. For the last 30 years, we’ve only had the capability to spend a maximum of two weeks in orbit using the Shuttle.
If you want to complain, then you should be looking at prior administrations and congresses, because they are the ones that didn’t change the current status quo. And as I recall, the Republicans in Congress and in the White House were OK with the status quo, so get off your high horse.
Coastal Ron wrote @ November 13th, 2010 at 6:10 pm […..NASA doesn’t do marketing, so with them in the lead, we will be stuck with space programs, not a space marketplace.]
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/07/16/space-program-vs-space-commerce/
‘Just saying that you’re doing something exciting isn’t the same as doing something exciting. And hearing about how exciting something is sure as hell isn’t the same as doing it. To launch an enduring legacy built on the accomplishment of Apollo 11 and begin the return on our investment, NASA needs to enable the private sector’s ability to capitalize on space resources, starting by demonstrating this capability on the Moon. Then the public can join in the construction of a road to space as opposed to being mere spectators in a museum to the past.”
Today’s fifth grader would be 28 years old when Constellation launched its first mission to the Moon in 2028 — assuming every Congress between now and then continued to fund that boondoggle at the expense of all other NASA programs.
HUGE front-page article in today’s Florida Today about commercial space:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101114/NEWS02/11140318/Space-Inc-
FLORIDA TODAY traveled coast to coast, toured secretive facilities, saw first-hand highly proprietary work under way and interviewed dozens of key players trying to stimulate this new industry at altitudes hundreds of miles above Earth.
Our four-month analysis found that U.S. private industry is more than capable of developing spacecraft to fly U.S. astronauts to and from low Earth orbit.
What’s more, U.S. aerospace companies already are developing, testing and launching prototypes.
Their plans are not just PowerPoint presentations and engineering drawings. Commercial companies are cutting metal, assembling engines, testing steering thrusters, and in some cases, spacecraft already are orbiting the Earth.
It’s has been several years since I was a fifth-grader but what is an astronaut? And what is the difference between an astronaut and a truck driver?
An easier link for the Florida Today articles:
http://www.floridatoday.com/spaceinc
“Elections have consequences. In the last 2 years the lunatic fringe of anti-Constellation radicals and space nihilists had their day in the sun.”
Very few in congress could have been labelled as anti-constellation. The administration, perhaps, but they’re still in the White House. If anything, the new crop will be more anti-constellation than ever. They’ll be more anti-commercial space as well, but don’t think just because they’re largely Republicans that they’re going to run happily into the embracing arms of Constellation. Cx is dead, the question is whether or not the rest of NASA is going to go down in budgetary flames along with it. Remember, the Tea Partiers don’t have a space policy unless we’re talking cutting it.
Kosmas is accurate in her prediction of what’s in store for NASA and ultimately human spaceflight. The new Republicans will scrap this major waste of tax payer’s money, and get that money back into our nation’s pockets, where it can do a lot more good. Now that the true colors of the Tea Party and new Republican establishment is becoming apparent, I’m starting to think this is not a bad thing after all.
Keep in mind, folks. You’re not going to cut government spending without cutting jobs. Most of the dollars that fall under the discretionary slice of the government pie go to either government or private sector jobs.
DCSCA wrote @ November 13th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Best comment you’ve ever penned. 100% in agreement.
Both Kranz and Lovell are stuck in another time and another era, and cannot, like many on the GOP right understand why the nation has moved on.
there are three ironies here.
First the nation has moved on from a cold war attitude where exploration of space by humans only benefit to the nation really had to be beating the Soviets. That is a very good thing. Its hard for many to remember but Apollo was a stand in (at least at first) for global conflict and in the end, that this need no longer exist is good.
Second, we are now in an era where the science of what was done on Apollo can be done for a far cheaper investment by craft that have people in loop on the earth rather then people in loop at the pointed end of the instrument stick. It is worthwhile to recall that only 1 of the apollo astronauts was a professional geologist (or whatever Schmidt was)…the rest were test pilots who were masquerading as geologist…and we have with our uncrewed vehicles allowed geologist on earth to have the capability for far less cost to evolve the instruments. We are going to have to spend some more money now then we do on un crewed vehicles, but far less then the 10 billion we have spent on projects like Cx that are going nowhere.
Third…and this is very important…the US no longer has the capability internally for “pleasure” money spending as it did during Apollo. The prime reason for that is the policies of the right wing. With personal taxes at record lows…and the right wing mantra “its our money we want to keep it” then it gets harder to do national projects which require collective taxes to accomplish.
Had we not spent money on wasted wars in Iraq/Afland, the tax cuts for the most wealthy, and some other goofy and UNPAID for notions in the bush era, the nation would not be running the massive deficits that it is…as long as we are running those deficits then there is little or no money for projects such as human exploration of space; which are not very high in terms of real value.
Whittington, Spudis and others try and get around that by imagining a Chinese threat or talking about things as they might be decades from now…but that is the same kind of logic that got us bogged down in the mideast and has for the time being ruined our economy.
Kranz and Lovell are sadly products of their age, and they have not evolved as they have aged.
Robert G. Oler
Best comment you’ve ever penned.
You have to admit, that’s a pretty low bar.
“I’m scared to see the day when a fifth-grader comes into class and doesn’t know what an astronaut is.â€
What indeed IS an astronaut?
Someone who goes into space on behalf of NASA? (In Gene’s day, this was the only possibility most people took seriously. All else was speculation or science fiction.)
Someone who goes into space on a NASA vehicle, in any non-crew capacity? (Or is *everyone* on a NASA vehicle to be regarded as crew, and thus an astronaut?)
Someone who goes into space on behalf of the Department of Defense? (in a different X-20/MOL universe, there would have been a number of those by now.)
On behalf of a non-DoD branch of government?
On behalf of a non-profit entity?
On behalf of a commercial entity?
A paying passenger, doing it primarily for the experience? (Which is a perfectly valid activity, and one to be encouraged, but one that no more deserves the title of ‘astronaut,’ than a passenger on a cruise ship is a ‘sailor.’ Some people are just not crew. On an airliner, I know I’m not, even though I’m airborne along with them. I expect no ‘wings’ for that…even if the flight happened to take me outside the atmosphere.)
And I won’t even try to address the question of how to define people doing these things who are not from, or not doing it in the US…
As long as there *are* many people in space, actually doing many or all of the above or more, and a fifth-grader has at least as much awareness of this as s/he does of their aviation and maritime equivalents, their importance, their realistic future career possibilities (as opposed to the extremely slim [especially post-Shuttle] chance of doing it only for NASA), then our ‘inspiration’ job is done…
I’d like to see the scientifically valid survey Mr. Kranz conducted showing fifth graders don’t know what an astronaut is.
Of course, he just made it up, perhaps an anecdote he’s using to generalize.
The overwhelming majority know, of course, but apparently the reporter didn’t ask Mr. Kranz why it’s important that every fifth grader *should* know.
Access to space has become far more routine than almost 50 years now. It’s no longer a novelty. The typical American no longer knows the names of the current astronauts, because there’s no reason to. Government astronaut is still a skilled job and one worthy of great respect. But so is firefighter, police officer, and teacher. At the end of the day, they all zip their pants the same — well, maybe the astronaut uses Velcro, but you get the idea.
“They succeeded in derailing the exploration program. Now our sorry nation is reduced to hitching rides to our own space station with our eternal enemy Russia.”
I was sure that the gap in launch capabilities for the United States was created when the decision to retire the shuttle in 2010 was made. It was proposed by Ex President Bush, in VSE (Vision for Space Exploration), which came out in 2004, that a new CEV (crew exploration vehicle) come online by 2014.
With the appointment of Adminstrator Griffin and the new ESAS creating the constellation systems plunged our space program into costly budget overruns, constant changes, costing time and money and continual schedule slips. Can you please explain how President Obama is responsible for the United States having to hitch rides by russia when the policy that created the gap and the vast bulk of the schedule slips and budget overruns took place under the last administration?
If Okeefe would have pushed funding for a cots-d type program the day he took office these conversations would not even be taking place. It could have easily been funded from the 10 billion wasted on constellation. At least we would have had something to show for some of the money.
Does windy ever get tired of outright lying?
Rand Simberg wrote @ November 14th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I do admit it, but if I had said that my comment would have been deleted… Not sure what’s up with that.
Frank Glover wrote @ November 14th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
what Kranz and Lovell dont understand is that the vast majority of 5th graders today dont have a clue what the word astronaut means, and probably cannot name a single one, that is accurate as well in the Clear Creek School district.
Robert G. Oler
I would have thought that ‘astronaut’ is really a category rather than a specific description – anyone who is travelling or has travelled through the exo-atmospheric realm known as space.
As Frank Glover points out, there are lots of specific descriptions of people who fit into the ‘astronaut’ category. In NASA, they tend to fall into two categories – scientists who carry out experiments in person whilst in space and equipment operators/engineers (although these two job descriptions tend to blur together in some areas). We also in the last decade have seen the birth of the space tourist, aka the ‘spaceflight participant’.
I wonder how long it will be before we will have a new class of people – ‘Astrohabitant’ – someone who lives in space.
Once again, the commenters on this blog want to “shoot the messenger” in disparaging posts even when those persons were part of a successful space program like Apollo. Let us ignore the message. What is the strategic vision of NASA now that both Constellation has been cancelled and VSE been gutted? To what end will commercial spaceflight to LEO serve when the ISS is retired? Will there be new space stations? What is the long term vision?
Despite having changed NASA’s budget, no cohesive plan for NASA’s future has been released by the current administration. We have heard talk about maybe visiting an asteroid, but no definite plans or commitment. Nothing but silence on the President’s part.
And if you think that commercial spaceflight is going to be successful, go read Wayne Hale’s blog.
Gary Miles wrote @ November 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Once again, the commenters on this blog want to “shoot the messenger†in disparaging posts even when those persons were part of a successful space program like Apollo. …
not really.
The message that these two (Lovell and Kranz) are pushing is a message that simply has no relevance to our time. Apollo was successful politically (and that is what matters) because it addressed a political question of the era…the Apollo mold has floundered since for the same reasons we are floundering in Iraq/Afland, our concept of an economy etc because the questions needing answers dont need answers from the mid point of the last century, but are entirely new and unique to our time.
This country needs jobs that are relevant to a new century, and which help create and continue a middle class…and those are not jobs that are created by doing things, the things of which have no relevance to the rest of the country.
The jobs that built the Boulder DAm had relevance to not only creating a middle class BUT the product of the Boulder had relevance to creating and sustaining that middle class…
the exploration goal does not…the effort of doing it has no relevance and the product of what is done has none either…and both of the two messengers you mention are trying in some manner to say that it does.
It is not that Obama’s space plans do not have a goal, or a plan or a mission; it is simply that the “exploration nuts”, the “technowelfare nuts” dont like it…because it is not their goal, or their plan or their mission. Thats OK we can all disagree on policy, but at least when “I” would disagree with what was I would say why in specific terms that had some notion of reality.
Whittington, Spudis et all go into “the Chinese are going to take over the Moon”…and while entertaining there is no reality to that. But then again Whittington is pushing on his blog that Sarah Palin is a financial genus…which is only accurate in a narrow sense…she is good at taking the money of the far right who likes her.
Robert G. Oler
@Bennett wrote @ November 14th, 2010 at 11:06 am
And here’s a postscript for you- when I was a fifth grader back in 1965 during NASA’s heyday I wrote NASA HQ in Washington and asked for information on Project Gemini and a ‘NASA’ patch for a class project. I got a form letter back from GSFC with checkbox answers (which I still have- a priceless piece of bureaucracy), denied a patch and they enclosed a Gemini fact sheet just like the library had. Disappointing. My niece is a fifth grader now and can switch on her laptop and get the morning image and weather report from Mars while she eats her Post-Toasties. Kranz underestimates what kids value today. He may be disappointed to learn that getting marketable career skills outweighs sending people to explore the stars with this generation– especially when they already have a feel for how the day will pass on Mars over breakfast.
Gary Miles wrote @ November 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
“Despite having changed NASA’s budget, no cohesive plan for NASA’s future has been released by the current administration.”
And that is because we’re not ready to go anywhere yet. Constellation showed us that NASA couldn’t build a Delta IV Heavy competitor on-time or on-budget, so why would anyone think they could build something bigger?
The plan now is to work on the initial transportation segments, and then build on that. NASA doesn’t have the budget or expertise to do anything bigger, and it even struggles with simple programs like telescopes.
“We have heard talk about maybe visiting an asteroid, but no definite plans or commitment. Nothing but silence on the President’s part.”
You contradicted yourself. The President has stated the goals, but since they will happen outside of his term in office, he is not committing to dates.
“And if you think that commercial spaceflight is going to be successful, go read Wayne Hale’s blog.”
What Wayne is pointing out is that NASA still doesn’t get it, but that doesn’t mean that Bigelow or others won’t. SpaceX will get there on it’s own, although it will just be longer without NASA funding (they’ll have 14 Dragon leftover from the COTS/CRS program). Success ultimately will be measured by how much of it happens, not that NASA does it.
Gary Miles wrote:
To what end will commercial spaceflight to LEO serve when the ISS is retired?
Those of us paying attention know that the Obama administration just extended the ISS from 2015 to 2020, and probably beyond. Under the VSE you glorify, the ISS would have been decommissioned in 2015.
Despite having changed NASA’s budget, no cohesive plan for NASA’s future has been released by the current administration.
Again, those of us paying attention know that the cohesive plan is online at:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/
If you have to make things up to argue your point, then your point must be pretty weak.
Paul Spudis, as channeled through Anne Spudis, wrote @ November 14th, 2010 at 5:34 am
Just saying the Moon is exciting doesn’t make it exciting. Certainly the current Congress didn’t think it was all that exciting, and the Moon was removed from the “Next Destination” list without so much as a whimper.
The Moon deserves funding for exploration, but at this point that would be robotic, not the human type. For now, NASA needs to concentrate on putting in place basic transportation, as no expedition can go anywhere without the right transportation.
The Moon has been patiently waiting 38 years since we were last there, and it will wait another 38 (more or less) just as patiently for us to return.
Gary Miles wrote “If you think that commercial spaceflight is going to be successful, go read Wayne Hale’s blog.”
A reading comprehension class is in order.
Wayne was pointing out the train wreck NASA was about to cause by micro-management and unreasonable requirements for anyone able and willing to participate in CCDev.
Wayne’s point was that the commercial companies (Boeing, ULA, SpaceX, Orbital, Sierra Nevada) are quite capable of performing safe and reliable HSF missions to the ISS, but that NASA, through its culture of entrenched bureaucracy, was about to make sure that no one would want to.
Comercial space is doing just fine without NASA, but HSF for NASA will come to an end unless they continue to fly Soyuz (or use the SAME requirements for HSF for American companies that they use for Russian HSF).
What is interesting in the on-going political discussion is that no one comments on Ed Weiler’s role in the JWST over-runs. Hmmm…
It must be noted though, that when JWST was first engineered, the launch systems that were anticipated were far different than Ares 1. It also must be noted that the specs for JWST were not just put forth by Golden, but instead after many consultations, including inter-agency open meetings at Goddard.
In fairness, while NASA’s probes to impactor type bodies have been excellent, I also have to confess to my extreme disappointment with Weiler’s management of the impactor detection problem, and with the lack of impact research funding. In my opinion, by background he is a cosmologist who has a bias towards his field of interest in astronomy. The question is how you value cosmology versus impactor detection, and I have my own bias there, based on my own research background.
Hi Gary –
“What is the strategic vision of NASA now that both Constellation has been cancelled and VSE been gutted? To what end will commercial spaceflight to LEO serve when the ISS is retired? Will there be new space stations? What is the long term vision?”
My estimate is:
First off, to hold the shuttle propulsion technology base intact with Direct.
Second, to improve the EELVs and Falcon through commercial delivery.
Three, to fully utilize the investment in ISS to the maximum extent.
Four, to improve the aircraft tech base to maintain the US lead
Five, to improve the US propulsion/launcher tech base.
Six, to improve earth science systems, to improve their products, and to maintain the US lead in satellite systems
Seven, to maintain US space leadership in Planetary Protection systems,
and undertake the tasks necessary for the security of the nation
Eight, by doing these, to lay the foundation for affordable and sustainable BEO manned activities.
Its not a simple slogan like “Back to the Moon” or “On to Mars”, but then the real world is more complex than a simple slogan. “Do what we need to do to maintain the US leadership role in space” is a good slogan, if you really need one.
I think the end of HSF in the U.S. just started with the just released:
NASA has released a draft (dated Oct. 8, 2010) of its requirements CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements.
As discussed on Wayne Hale’s blog:
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/
Too quick with the Submit button!
Maybe I should have added NASA HSF as commercial could do it on their own.
That 2028 date, is just anti-Moon propaganda! But EVEN if the Orion-Altair Lunar Return would have taken that long, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR MORE PREFERABLE TO THIS OBAMA-DECREED TWENTY-YEAR TRAP IN LOW EARTH ORBIT!!! I will never vote for that flim-flam artist ever, nor for his close cronies!! No B.O. in 2012! May the next man to occupy the Oval Office, be receptive to a strong & well focussed Lunar Return. Asteroids will NEVER be viable substitutes for base-building on Luna firma! The Planetary Society are fools when they eliminate the Moon as an astronautical destination. Those old fogeys have no darn idea what they’re talking about! They got their “Exploration Roadmap” from LA LA LAND!!
To what end will commercial spaceflight to LEO serve when the ISS is retired?
Bigelow and Orbital Technologies are both working on commercial space stations.. are you paying attention or not?
In regards to NASA, future beyond Earth exploration starts in LEO.
Maybe he means he wants NASA to abandon LEO and to establish a new cozy monopoly beyond.
@ Trent Waddington,
Or possibly at EML-2. ULA have been advocating a EML staging point for both lunar and BEO deep space missons. They’ve recently released their suggested EELV-heritage Mars orbiter architecture. Frankly, I think that their ideas seem to be more forward-looking and better considered than NASA’s efforts.
Why aren’t they being adopted then? Well, the only product from ATK that they use the occaisonal handfull of GEM solid rocket motors. No big segmented solids at all. That makes the plan a non-starter, at least from the point of view of the Utah delegation. Additionally, there is far less work for MSFC to do. That makes it a non-starter from the point of view of the Alabama delegation. On a less politically-charged level, it also needs only 25t to 50t through TLI for most missions and is based on a 18ft rather than 33ft diameter vehicles. ULA’s proposals thus lie below what NASA seems to think are the minimum possible sizes for the missions in question.
Do you ever get the impression that the how is more important than the what? Sometimes it seems that the objective is to find a plan that fits into a methodology rather than create a methodology to achieve a plan.
Do you ever get the impression that the how is more important than the what? Sometimes it seems that the objective is to find a plan that fits into a methodology rather than create a methodology to achieve a plan.
Sure, especially in the politically charged and severely partisan times we live in.
Politics is the methodology and the plan has to fit that paradigm.
Wayne Hale points out that the draft of CCT-REQ-1130 is 260 pages, and it points to 74 other requirements documents.
I found the FAA’s aircraft technical standards for Part 25 carriers online. It wasn’t a PDF, but I copied all of it to a Word document and it was 435 pages.
I agree that NASA documentation is scattered and overdone, but I think the situation is comparable as far as the volume of requirements.
The main difference is the FAA rules developed over decades, and NASA is trying to do it all at once.
I don’t think a commercial space company is going to cut and paste NASA’s 260 pages and those other documents into their systems engineering system. They write their own document and do a quality audit to verify that the intent of NASA’s documents is covered.
This should have been done in the beginning.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote:
Do you ever get the impression that the how is more important than the what? Sometimes it seems that the objective is to find a plan that fits into a methodology rather than create a methodology to achieve a plan.
Congress wants a rocket built out of pork. All the more reason to go commercial.
Once again many of you miss the point. All the usual suspects. Doesn’t matter what your idea for what the US should be doing in space. Doesn’t matter what my idea for what the US should be doing in space. What matters is what the President’s administration ideas for what the US should do in space. Right now those ideas are not really clear. Some technology R&D, ISS maintenance and science research, some international ventures, and possibly a human space mission to an asteroid in the far future seem to be the only things on the table as far as the President is concerned. Congress weighed in and still wants the super heavy lift launch vehicle. So what is the strategy behind all of this? If NASA funds commercial crew development (and with the Republicans in control of the House that is a BIG if), what are the long term goals for supporting commercial spaceflight? At this point, there is no strategic vision. This was the arrgument Lovell and Kranz were making. These two old spacemen know more about the space program than the whole lot of you posters.
Bigelow has done a great job developing inflatable space stations, but he has some daunting challenges. The least of which is getting his station into LEO. The only spaceflight company offering flights to LEO is Energia on Soyuz. Given their pricetag, its pretty hard to see how Bigelow is going to make a profit using Soyuz. And that doesn’t even include cargo resupply flights In the US, commercial human spaceflight will increasingly not likely happen until 2017 at the earliest, and later if House kills commercial crew funding. Elon Musk has already tripled his original estimate of $300 million to more than $900 million for human rating a Falcon 9/Dragon launch system. Given the fact that SpaceX is already almost 3 years behind on COTS demo flight of Falcon 9, Musk’s promises that he can have commercial human spaceflight by 2014 are ringing hollow.
BTW, there was no plan under the VSE to decommission the ISS by 2015. Extending the station was always on the table.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote “Do you ever get the impression that the how is more important than the what?”
I do, and in my cynical mind I see payoffs and multi-generational wealth-building as the top priority of both our elected officials, and the top brass at NASA.
The what is of little importance to those who queue up at the porkmobile. We’re lucky to be alive at a time when commercial space is finally starting to close the business plan.
Gary Miles wrote:
What matters is what the President’s administration ideas for what the US should do in space. Right now those ideas are not really clear.
For the second time … Your statement is untrue. It is all spelled out in great detail at:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/
Go actually read it instead of making false claims. Most people here are smart enough to know better.
Gary Miles wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 10:10 am
what you seem to be looking for is a Soviet style “Five year plan”…we dont need any more of those
Robert G. Oler
Gary Miles wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 10:10 am
“So what is the strategy behind all of this?”
I think the first thing you need to understand is that NASA is not going to push the expansion of humanity into space – business will. NASA does not have the budget to do so, and never will.
Once you understand that, then the path forward becomes more clear, which is that NASA (and the other space agencies) need to become partners with the emerging space marketplace, not compete with them. There is already a robust launch and satellite business, and the next step is finding revenue sources for activities in space that require humans.
So the bottom line is that the next step is capitalism, and not the government-run monopoly that NASA has had over human spaceflight to date. The paradigm has to change, otherwise the results will stay the same.
“Bigelow has done a great job developing inflatable space stations, but he has some daunting challenges.”
An almost certain bet is that some percentage companies pushing into new markets, like space stations or crew transportation, will fail. That’s capitalism at it’s finest, because without failure you don’t weed out the weak and discover the better markets. From a market perspective, failure is not a bad thing.
“its pretty hard to see how Bigelow is going to make a profit using Soyuz”
So far he’s holding out starting his business until he can use American companies, and he’s not depending on the lowest-cost provider (SpaceX), but Boeing/ULA. He has also stated that he needs more than one provider before he starts up, since he wants redundancy (call it business insurance).
“BTW, there was no plan under the VSE to decommission the ISS by 2015. Extending the station was always on the table.”
The Bush/Griffin budget zero’d out the ISS after 2015. Call it what you want, but the U.S. was not going to be using the ISS after 2015 – maybe the Chinese would have bought out our investment and kept it going, but in any case, the U.S. would not have had a destination in space until the Constellation program starting launching to the Moon in the 2030’s. How’s that for a vision…
Gary Miles wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 10:10 am
If NASA funds commercial crew development (and with the Republicans in control of the House that is a BIG if),…
I found this a hoot (not that you probably meant to be funny but it is funny).
The GOP is always selling itself as the friend of “commercial”…except when it interferes with their big government that they like.
Robert G. Oler
what you seem to be looking for is a Soviet style “Five year planâ€â€¦we dont need any more of those
Yes, the free wheeling capitalism of the current program is working so well. Who needs a plan when smart people can talk a good game? A key element of the Soviet system was also the political allocation of capital, a practice strongly favored by the current Administration.
Kennedy once declared a 10 year plan, and that worked out pretty well.
Kennedy once declared a 10 year plan, and that worked out pretty well.
Not for Kennedy though, nor for the prospects of opening up space for mankind.
Gary, Mike Suffredini said himself to the Augustine Committee that he was planning for a first-quarter 2016 decommissioning under the Constellation Program.
Yes, the free wheeling capitalism of the current program is working so well.
The what?
Really, from what planet are you posting this?
@ Gary Miles wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 10:10 am
“This was the arrgument Lovell and Kranz were making. These two old spacemen know more about the space program than the whole lot of you posters.”
And you know that for a fact because…
Not for Kennedy though, nor for the prospects of opening up space for mankind.
Apollo is Kennedy’s greatest legacy, unless you consider it a failure for not deflecting an assassin’s bullet. Despite Neil Armstrong’s words, mankind’s interests will best be served only when America’s are first.
amightywind wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 11:33 am
what you seem to be looking for is a Soviet style “Five year planâ€â€¦we dont need any more of those
Yes, the free wheeling capitalism of the current program is working so well. ..;.
Since Cx is a mess I assume that you are posting in a sarcastic mode.
One of the reasons that Cx is a mess is that there is no hint of capitalism in it. I AM THE LAST person to argue for “free wheeling capitalism”…but the crony capitalism that was rampant in the Bush era has just about killed the middle class in The Republic and it has killed the national space effort.
“Kennedy once declared a 10 year plan, and that worked out pretty well.”
It worked out “OK’ particularly in the first five years of it…but after that it was running out of steam. Democracies do not fight long wars well and they do not do long term program efforts well because in Democracies things are fluid. By the time that Gemini was perfecting the skills to go to the Moon the reasons for going to the Moon were done…and the program was running completely on bureaucratic and political inertia…that ended about two hours after Armstrong set foot on the Moon.
By Apollo 12…the American people simply no longer were interested in the effort.
Space enthusiast have had a hard time explaining that…because if they learn the real reasons for it, then they will come to the conclusion that long term projects that lack national will…dont make sense.
Robert G. Oler
Apollo is Kennedy’s greatest legacy, unless you consider it a failure for not deflecting an assassin’s bullet.
Apollo laid the seeds for the 30-40 years of stagnation that were STS.
amightywind wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Apollo is Kennedy’s greatest legacy, ……………
not so much.
The Greatest legacy of Jack Kennedy is that he stopped WW3. What Kennedy and his advisors recognized in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis…was that (to coin a phrase) “nuclear weapons and their delivery systems” were “special” …and that nuclear war itself had become the enemy…not other states.
That was a very near thing. It is easy to see a set of circumstances (like Bush the last and his set of advisors) where what was at stake with Cuba became more important then the notion of stopping a civilization game changing war.
After “Cubur” the notion of MAD fully took over in both or military and most important “political” strategery…and we avoided “Nuclear combat toe to toe with the Ruskies” and the end of mankinds rise in civilization.
The other legacy of Jack kennedy was that he saw an America that was not monochrome…that was not just white nor was just male…and moved in some measure to break that notion.
The lunar landings were important but in the scheme of things, they were small potatoes or potatos depending on spelling.
Robert G. Oler
Sooo, the Cuban missile crisis counts for nothing? I mean, not destroying the planet – that should count for something
@Ferris Valyn wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
LOL Rest easy. The Under 40 crowd are pretty weak on history. Dana Perino, child of the 70’s and Dubya’s press secretary, had never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little wonder Apollo is a character in Battlestar Gallactica, a wrestler’s handle or the name of a theatre in Harlem to that generation.
I laugh every time someone invokes Kennedy’s legacy as if there was something magic about him that got us to the Moon.
As many people here have written ad nauseam, JFK’s sole purpose in making the proposal was to show the world that American technology was superior to the Soviet Union. He made it clear many times, publicly and privately, that he wasn’t interested in exploration and was very concerned it would blow the budget.
Had he not been murdered in Dallas and therefore become a martyr, he would have faced the same pressures that happen in today’s Congress. LBJ had a lot of political capital to spend because of JFK’s martyrdom, and that helped fund Apollo even though the spending was out of control.
Today there is no space race, there is no imperative to show the world our technology is superior to anyone else, and quite frankly all the spacefaring nations cooperate with each other to some extent — except for China, and they’re about where we were in 1965. There are already overtures to get China to join everyone else, which will probably happen once they realize how expensive it will be to go to the Moon just to get more rocks. Is it worth spending $150 billion just to have a feel-good moment sometime around 2030? Probably not.
I think eventually the nations of the world will return together to the Moon on a joint mission to share the costs. But it’s certainly not a priority for any government on this planet at this point in history.
The Greatest legacy of Jack Kennedy is that he stopped WW3. What Kennedy and his advisors recognized in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis
1000 years from now when American speaking students study the archaic American English speeches of Kennedy at Neil Armstrong University they will remember, “I believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.” They will not give a hoot about our early tussles with the 57th state Cuba, or the long extinct Russian Empire.
They’ll remember Kennedy’s speech about a Cold-War race as we recall the Viking’s first voyages to America — as a dead end, in terms of opening up space.
“They will not give a hoot about our early tussles with the 57th state Cuba, or the long extinct Russian Empire.”
Future historians, archeologists, and students will study both as they’re both essential elements of the Cold War. The era can’t be understood without grasping both the military and non-military means of confrontation that the US and USSR pursued. The Cuban Missile Crisis and Apollo were two sociopolitical sides of the same same technological (ICBM) coin.
1,000 years ago, the Norse were both discovering North America on their way to (temporarily) settling Newfoundland and invading Britain on their way to establishing a monarchy. These activities were two sides of the same technological (longship) coin. Both are studied today to understand the Viking Age.
As a member of the under 40 crowd – sorry, but don’t assume abreakingwind is somehow representative of us (not even sure he is under 40)
And let me actually address the main point –
Abreakingwind – the issue isn’t whether historians are going to argue about this speech, or that speech. The issue is, had the Cuban Missile Crisis gone differently, there wouldn’t be any historians.
You can believe whatever you want, but the fact that we exists, and might not have had different decisions been made – thats a hell of a legacy.
amightywind wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Hmmm.
If Kennedy had gotten a deal w/t Soviets to conduct joint explorations in space, to the moon and suxh, he’d have pounced on it. JFK gets a lot of surface credit for giving the nod to Apollo but wiser heads know it was LBJ who really kept the cash flowing and pushed Apollo to the moon.
A lot can happen in 1,000 years, Windy.
Rand Simberg wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
That’s just a silly assertion. But then, considering the source, understandale.
Oler – “The GOP is always selling itself as the friend of “commercialâ€â€¦except when it interferes with their big government that they like.”
Is this the same GOP that just agreed as a caucus (House and Senate) to try and ban all congressional earmarks? If they fail in that objective (among several others) I will join you in condemning them. But for now, they appear to be more in-tune with the wishes of the Republic in significantly paring back the size of Govt. than the current regime. Pelosi and the man-child appear to be tone-deaf to the message the US voters sent November 2. I wonder if the rest of the Dems in Congress have the courage (or fear of a job-loss in 2012) to follow that lead.
Major Tom wrote @ November 15th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
nice post…really nice Robert G. Oler
GuessWho
First, have some decency and please refer to him as the President. Second, although this was in some ways a repudiation of Democrats, there is a lot of evidence that it wasn’t an embrace of Republican ideas.
GuessWho wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 12:10 am
“If they fail in that objective (among several others) I will join you in condemning them.”
And maybe you were part of the swing voters that voted out the Republicans earlier this decade, soon after Karl Rove declared that Republican were set to rule for a long time. If anything, voters have shown their distaste for both parties, and polls show that despite voting in many Republicans, that they have little faith in them being better than the Democrats.
People get engaged politically when they are not satisfied, and we’ll see what happens in the next two years. One thing is for sure, is that the Tea Party wing of the Republican party is going to make things very interesting for the traditional Republicans. We’ll see how well Boehner and McConnell do at creating voteable legislation, especially NASA-friendly legislation.