Other

Space policy tough love, and space security recommendations

In an op-ed on the Space News web site, Joan Johnson-Freese offers a cold dose of reality to those seeking to roll back the changes in space exploration policy made by the Obama Administration, particularly the end of Constellation program. In short, she argues, it’s not going to happen because human spaceflight, despite all the rhetoric, isn’t that high a priority in Congress to win significant additional funding:

While the Augustine commission report upon which the Obama Administration heavily relied in making the decision to cancel Constellation described strong public support for human exploration, as have past, similar surveys, the answer to a different question not asked is the important one: Compared with other areas of government funding, including health care, roads, education, defense and social welfare programs, where would you prioritize human space exploration? Unfortunately enthusiasm wanes in such a prioritization. Americans like and want a human space exploration program, they just see it as more expendable than other government programs.

Space development, she adds, has been “an anomaly” compared to other industries, because initial government investment has largely not be followed by significant commercial investment. “That must change for real development to occur, and President Obama has directed NASA to chart a course to allow and promote commercial development,” she states. Those who don’t like that new course can appeal to Congress, where they “are likely to find significant rhetorical support there – but far less financial support, reflective of the priorities of most of their constituents.”

The new National Space Policy, she said, “offers a realistic blueprint for renewal rather than a blueprint back to the Moon, or a space battleplan that threatens the very sustainability of the space environment required for security.” In that vein, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a report Monday with its suggestions on improving space security, building upon the general guidelines in the report. Among the UCS’s recommendations: declare that the US will not place weapons, including missile defense interceptors, in space; improve the robustness and redundancy of satellite systems to make them less vulnerable to attack; begin discussions on how to negotiate international agreements on space security; and modify export control regulations to “reduce unnecessary barriers” for space cooperation.

58 comments to Space policy tough love, and space security recommendations

  • Anne Spudis

    Another article out today:

    Space Junk: a risky game of space invaders

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8135495/Space-junk-a-risky-game-of-space-invaders.html

    [Excerpt] Professor Richard Crowther of the UK Space Agency, who advises the Government, agrees. “Underlying the new policy,” he says, “is an acceptance by the US that it cannot continue to exploit space in isolation. Following the recent Cosmos-Iridium crash, there was a recognition that to manage the growing collision hazard in space, the US needed to share more information with other space-faring nations.”

    Such sharing of “space situational awareness data” would, says Dr Thomas Kelso of the Center for Space Standards & Innovation in Colorado, significantly reduce the number of false alarms, and allow some satellites to be steered out of the way. The importance of this was underlined last year when a speedy warning from the US allowed a Nigerian satellite to avoid colliding with another object. The American declaration also addressed the growing presence of commercial operators, and the need for them to make data about their orbital fleets available.

    Some experts, including Prof Barstow, suggest this reflects a cash-strapped Nasa’s intention to concentrate on blue-sky projects rather than commercial operations, which it thinks should be funded by corporate beneficiaries. [End Excerpt]

  • Gee Space

    Ms. Johnson-Freese states that Constellation was doomed from its inception as a mismatch between the ways-means-ends required for any kind of programmatic success. Boy, what insight. Any space program, Commercial or NASA that does not have consistent backing in terms of funding and cost controls will probably be doomed. Also, a lack of adequate purpose or mission(s) will doom a program.

    As to UCS’s recommendation that the US will not place weapons, I believe, President John F Kennedy and the US Congress approved an international ban on weapons treaty in the early 1960’s
    .

  • amightywind

    The 2010 NSP offers a realistic blueprint for renewal rather than a blueprint back to the Moon

    Just another bureaucratic nabob telling us citizens to reduce our expectations and be content. (Be happy, your government check is in the mail.) She uses all of the Newspace power words: “realistic”, “renewal”, “sustainability”. God save our republic from ciphers like this. This country is crying out for leadership.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gee Space – only nuclear weapons. No such deal has been placed on conventional weapons.

  • CharlesHouston

    Ms Johnson-Freese starts her article by giving her reaction to the many “posts” in reaction to the Obama budget proposal of early 2010. This is a very shaky ground from which to start – posts even on this august site are hardly representative of the American (or allied) citizen. Could it be that many people who remark on these sites are very dedicated to a particular point of view and can be counted on to vociferously defend their preferred program, often in spite of clear evidence to the contrary?

    Fortunately she quickly moves along to a slightly more stable base of the many polls that show that the citizen is not very concerned about space exploration.

    Certainly a part of the problem was the inadequate budget proposed by the Bush Administration – compounded by the actions of NASA. Given the budget for a Ford Focus they go out and specify a BMW 750. Then they are forced to delete two seats from Orion, etc. They specify a solid rocket booster when we had far more experience flying liquid boosters. Etc.

    She cripples her credibility when she says that a part of the problem is the Federal deficit – which was too large under President Bush but was vastly expanded under President Obama. Instead of proposing high tech jobs in the space industry (perhaps flying more Shuttles as a wild example) the Obama budget preferred low tech jobs laying track for high speed rail. President Obama could have curbed his enthusiasm for big construction projects and instead spent less money on jobs which excite students, build new industries, etc.

    Her article ultimately fails when she does not admit that most of Constellation survived – Orion changed names, Ares is morphing into a heavy lift program. Certainly we are hoping to direct more money towards a commercial effort than did the (poorly thought out) Constellation program. But that change in direction is still a proposal and has NOT been backed up with money, etc. It is a proposal so we cant declare victory there yet.

  • David Davenport

    [Excerpt] Professor Richard Crowther of the UK Space Agency, who advises the Government, agrees. “Underlying the new policy,” he says, “is an acceptance by the US that it cannot continue to exploit space in isolation.

    Translation: the UK Space Agency wants to get something for free from the USA.

  • Gee Space wrote:

    Ms. Johnson-Freese states that Constellation was doomed from its inception as a mismatch between the ways-means-ends required for any kind of programmatic success. Boy, what insight. Any space program, Commercial or NASA that does not have consistent backing in terms of funding and cost controls will probably be doomed. Also, a lack of adequate purpose or mission(s) will doom a program.

    Constellation was an insanely bad program and deserved to die.

    It didn’t suffer from lack of funding. It suffered from a sound business case.

    If you look at the infamous January 2004 Vision Sand Chart that accompanied Bush’s proposal, Constellation would have wiped out almost all other NASA spending to pay for it. Since the ISS would have been decommissioned in 2015 under this proposal, there would be no reason to build the Ares I as it would have nowhere to go. That meant NASA would have been dedicated mostly to building the Ares V, whose main purpose was to go get more Moon rocks.

    And let’s not overlook that NASA programs seem to invariably go way over their original projected budget. Why? Because nobody had the guts to shut down a wasteful program, until Obama came along and said enough to Constellation. Critics will say “it’s $10 billion wasted,” yet they overlook that many billions more will be wasted because the programs are badly managed.

    If you make a wrong turn and drive the wrong way for 50 miles, do you keep going once you realize you made a mistake because you don’t want to admit you made a mistake? Of course not. You turn around and head back in the right direction, writing off the lost time and fuel.

    If the goal is to get more Moon rockets, send a robotic craft which will be far safer and cheaper.

    The only reason to send humans is to create a permanent lunar colony. I’m all for that, but the public won’t support the massive spending increase that would require, especially in an era of trillion-dollar annual deficits.

    Russian president Dmitri Medvedev last year informally proposed a global space summit. I think that’s a good idea. Too bad nobody took him up on it. The only practical way humanity will return to the Moon any time soon is as a species with all the spacefaring nations sharing the costs.

  • David Davenport

    … as a species with all the spacefaring nations sharing the costs.

    “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

  • GeeSpace

    Ferris Valyn wrote
    Gee Space – only nuclear weapons. No such deal has been placed on conventional weapons

    How would you define conventional weapons or non conventional weapons?

    Any missle coold be a weapon even a commerical rocket. Or for that matter what about electronic jamming devices.

  • Jeff in Space

    Will congress extend Shuttle? It’s only two billion a year, then stop when commercial is ready to fly. The light rail gonna cost two hundred billion dollars and no ones gonna ride it..
    Jeff

  • Robert G. Oler

    CharlesHouston wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 10:13 am

    that is not a terribly valid or coherent critique of the article (which I thought was spot on).

    here is one place where you flounder.

    “. Instead of proposing high tech jobs in the space industry (perhaps flying more Shuttles as a wild example) the Obama budget preferred low tech jobs laying track for high speed rail. ”

    one of the canards of the “save the shuttle” group is that most of the jobs are “high tech”…not really most of the jobs are just blue collar jobs masquerading as high tech jobs.

    the folks running Mission control are no more or no less “high tech” then the folks who are managing thousands of lines of pipeline or oil rigs in the US, the folks working on the ET and trying to sort out the cracks are no more or less high tech then the folks who are as we speak doing A, B, C, and D checks on 737’s around The Republic. Even at the top, the astronauts are no more or less high tech then folks “driving” a nuclear boat under the polar ice cap.

    Laying track for high speed rail, everything associated with high speed rail is as high tech as anything that is done on the space shuttle system.

    The author makes the basic point…the shuttle and HSF have little or no connection with either the commercial market or I would add goals that people in The Republic find of value.

    Lets say that the shuttle system consumes 3 billion a year. Over two y ears that would completely convert the ATC system from its current 1950’s legacy config to a modern ADS-B.

    you tell me which is more high tech

    Robert G. Oler

  • GeeSpace

    Stephen C. Smith wrote
    Gee Space wrote:

    “Ms. Johnson-Freese states that Constellation was doomed from its inception as a mismatch between ………………….”

    Constellation was an insanely bad program and deserved to die.

    I was not stating that the Constellation should be re-instated. I was just stating that funding, mission, and cost control are necessary to have a good program

    Stephen, you might think Barack Obama is a great space program supporter. That’s great! But, other people don’t beleve that.

    I am sure (or hopeful) that you knpw thaere are people out there that are very interested in stopping all human space exploration and development.
    That fact is one of the major reasons in the lack of progress to promote human space missions to explore, to develop resources, and to build human settlements beyond Earth orbit

  • amightywind

    Stephen C. Smith wrote:

    The only practical way humanity will return to the Moon any time soon is as a species with all the spacefaring nations sharing the costs.

    Funny, the ISS doesn’t work like that, so one wonders why a lunar mission would. The US bears the cost disproportionately to the tune of $5 billion per year. The Russians, Euros and, Japanese, built a few ‘tin cans’ to our specifications and call themselves partners. How long will America persist with this faux program? The US would have plenty of money for a space program if we splashed the ISS.

  • Ferris Valyn

    GeeSpace – thats a tricky question, I fully grant. And probably using the word conventional was a mistake. However, the point remains, which is what I was trying to get to

    The only treaty we have regarding weapons in space is the OST, which says no nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

    That was my only real point.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The article ignores quite a few known facts. First, the American people did not vote in 2008 to cancel Constellation. Then candidate Obama promised to support the goal of a moon landing by 2008. Part of the rage the author describes stems from the fact that he was apparently lying about that commitment.

    Indeed, the Congress was unresponsive to American desires when it came to spending and legislation. How else to explain the stimulus package (a fraction of which would have put Constellation on a sound basis) and health care reform? Indeed, the recent election seems to have been a response to Obama’s spending priorities and not an endorsement of them.

    Ironically, it seems that it is Obama’s crony capitalism scheme that is unsustainable.

  • “Funny, the ISS doesn’t work like that, so one wonders why a lunar mission would. The US bears the cost disproportionately to the tune of $5 billion per year. The Russians, Euros and, Japanese, built a few ‘tin cans’ to our specifications and call themselves partners. How long will America persist with this faux program? The US would have plenty of money for a space program if we splashed the ISS.”

    Absolutely agree!

    Let the ISS die in 2016 or turn it over to Russia, Japan, and Europe so that we can move on to a third generation of simpler and cheaper space stations launched by our new HLVs or EELVs and a permanent base on the Moon.

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    First, the American people did not vote in 2008 to cancel Constellation.

    Nor did the American people vote for the VSE or Constellation in the first place. Don’t make silly justifications.

    a fraction of which would have put Constellation on a sound basis

    Have no appreciation for the deficit? Constellation had major program and engineering issues, and throwing more money at it was not the answer. “Success at any cost” may be a good motto when you’re at war, but not for science programs.

    Do you also think that the cost overruns on JWST are good? Good grief.

  • GeeSpace wrote:

    I am sure (or hopeful) that you knpw thaere are people out there that are very interested in stopping all human space exploration and development.

    That fact is one of the major reasons in the lack of progress to promote human space missions to explore, to develop resources, and to build human settlements beyond Earth orbit

    There are several “major reasons,” but that’s not one of them.

    One major reason is that Congress views the government human spaceflight program is one big porkfest. The committee members in the House and Senate responsible for NASA are pretty much those whose districts have space centers and/or large aerospace companies that make huge profits off these programs. As we saw in this year’s process, most of them didn’t care about Constellation or commercial space. It was all about how much pork they could direct to their districts. In fact, the Senate committee drew up a bill (which was ultimately adopted) that designed the new heavy-lift vehicle based on aerospace firms in the states they represent.

    Another major reason is that there is no particularly great enthusiasm among American taxpayers for government-funded human spaceflight. Polls consistently show Americans like spaceflight, they just don’t want to pay for it. I will grant that most Americans haven’t a clue how much of the federal budget goes to space, but that’s because they don’t really care. They see a Shuttle flight on TV once in a while, think it’s cool and then turn the channel to “Dancing with the Stars” or whatever.

    The third reason is a combination of the first two. Because of taxpayer apathy, their Congressional representatives have no particular motivation to fund a massive human spaceflight program. Keep in mind that the only reason we had Apollo was because JFK wanted to show the world that American technology was superior to the Soviet Union. That’s his words, in public and private. He was not interested in exploration or colonization. He made it very clear in recorded private conversations that he was quite concerned the Apollo program would bust the federal budget.

    The Cold War no longer exists. We have no reason to show the world we’ll spend $150 billion to go get Moon rocks. In retrospect, the whole thing was a massive publicity stunt and a bit daffy when one thinks of it.

    I’m all for building Starfleet and the “boldly go” thingie, but I’m also a realist and recognize it’s not going to happen in today’s political and economic climate. The government is facing trillion-dollar annual deficits for the foreseeable future. For the budget pruners, human spaceflight is low-hanging fruit. Obama knew all this when he proposed his FY11 budget. It’s not because of evil people who want to “stop all human space exploration and development.” Those people have no meaningful influence inside the Beltway. It’s because human spaceflight is not a national priority, hasn’t been for decades and a JFK-like visionary speech by Obama would get him laughed out of the Capitol because most members of Congress couldn’t care less.

  • Major Tom

    “Just another bureaucratic nabob telling us citizens…”

    Dr. Johnson-Freese is a professor at the Naval War College. Not a bureaucrat.

    Don’t make idiotic claims out of ignorance. At least read the author’s bio.

    “The US bears the cost disproportionately to the tune of $5 billion per year.”

    The ISS budget is less than half that. It’s $2.3 billion in FY 2010. See:

    nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

    Don’t make idiotic claims out of ignorance.

    “The Russians, Euros and, Japanese, built a few ‘tin cans’ to our specifications and call themselves partners.”

    The Russian “tin cans” were the first ISS modules on orbit and provide critical functions.

    Russia also supplies crew and cargo transport and crew rescue functions via Soyuz and Progress.

    European ATV and Japanese HTV also provide cargo transport.

    Don’t make things up.

  • Major Tom

    “How else to explain the stimulus package (a fraction of which would have put Constellation on a sound basis)”

    Per the Augustine report, Constellation needed a budget increase of $3-5 billion per year. The stimulus bill only provided a small fraction of that.

    “… Obama’s crony capitalism scheme…”

    The COTS and CCDev contractors were selected via full and open NASA competitions. Unlike the sole-source awards on Ares I, they weren’t handpicked by NASA (or the White House).

    Don’t make things up.

  • Major Tom

    “Instead of proposing high tech jobs in the space industry (perhaps flying more Shuttles as a wild example) the Obama budget preferred low tech jobs laying track for high speed rail.”

    Continuing to fly the Space Shuttle does not add jobs to the economy. Building high speed rail does. For better or worse.

    “President Obama could have curbed his enthusiasm for big construction projects and instead spent less money on jobs which excite students, build new industries, etc.”

    Again, continuing to fly the Space Shuttle does not build new industries. Building high speed railways does. For better or worse.

    “Orion changed names, Ares is morphing into a heavy lift program.”

    It remains to be seen if NASA chooses to use Orion as the basis for the MPCV or any Ares components in the SLS.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Will congress extend Shuttle? It’s only two billion a year,”

    It’s not. Shuttle’s current budget reflects a program in shutdown. Steady-state Shuttle operations cost $4-5 billion per year.

    On top of that, thousands of Shuttle workers have been laid off and scores of contractors have been turned off. Bringing all those people and companies back on board (or replacing them) would require a downpayment of several billion dollars, at least, on top of ramping the Shuttle budget back up to its historical level of $4-5 billion per year.

    FWIW…

  • amightywind

    Coastal Ron wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Nor did the American people vote for the VSE or Constellation in the first place. Don’t make silly justifications.

    No, the electorate delegated the problem to the Bush Administration who came up with a terrific program. Support for it in congress suggested the country was behind it.

    Have no appreciation for the deficit? Constellation had major program and engineering issues, and throwing more money at it was not the answer.

    The leftist lunatic fringe would have done anything to cancel Constellation. It was a political hatchet job intended to reward Obama Newspace contributors, nothing more. My hope is that the GOP will use the same blunt force tactics to change the current status quo. Now we have no program. The last space shuttles are literally falling apart on the pad. I don’t see an ‘answer’ in wrecking a program and not providing a viable alternative. I had to laugh when Obama made is VIP presentation at KSC. His handlers wouldn’t dare expose him to the NASA rank and file. Could you imagine Kennedy having the same concern?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    The article ignores quite a few known facts…

    those are not facts those are simply your opinions masquerading as those…

    they are without merit in terms of rebuting except for two things.

    “First, the American people did not vote in 2008 to cancel Constellation.”

    nor did they vote to continue it. the entire space effort much less the HSF part of it was only mentioned in spacepork districts and the people who cast their vote where that was the deciding issue is a very small amount.

    second

    you wrote:
    “How else to explain the stimulus package (a fraction of which would have put Constellation on a sound basis) ”

    the stimulus bill is a separate issue but three things are facts.

    First money from the stim bill would have put Cx on a “sound financial footing” for one year and one year only…it would not have taken care of the additional money that was said “now” to be needed nor the cost overruns that were as sure as rain on the program.

    Second, none of that would have addressed the basic defects in Cx which the article addresses…ie there was no commercial involvement in it or human spaceflight under the old plan.

    I know it bites Mark, but for the most part the guy who you liked as President, the guy who you use to claim was going to commercialize space; has as a minor part of his legacy a space effort and focus that has floundered as badly as the rest of his administration. Bush was a flop.

    Cx is dead…and we are better off for it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    The ISS budget is less than half that. It’s $2.3 billion in FY 2010. See:

    …And $3.1 billion for the shuttle, whose only destination is the space station. It is good that you provide citations. It is foolish to provide them when they contradict your arguments.

    has as a minor part of his legacy a space effort and focus that has floundered as badly as the rest of his administration. Bush was a flop.

    Yes, we get it. Bush bad. Obama good.

    Your argument adds up to this:

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=553766

    and is increasingly less compelling.

  • MichaelC

    Space development, she adds, has been “an anomaly” compared to other industries, because initial government investment has largely not be followed by significant commercial investment. “That must change for real development to occur, and President Obama has directed NASA to chart a course to allow and promote commercial development,” she states. Those who don’t like that new course can appeal to Congress, where they “are likely to find significant rhetorical support there – but far less financial support, reflective of the priorities of most of their constituents.”

    sadly true- we are turning into a nation of worthless reality tv watching sports fans.

    I am doubting the big rocket is going to happen under the republican congress and if the infrastructure goes it may be too expensive to resurrect.

    Like I said- you commercial space fans wanted cheap, now you are going to get so much cheap we will all be out of the space business.

    Thanks alot.

    By the way; any one of a dozen completely worthless DOD toys would have paid for constellation.

  • Major Tom

    “…And $3.1 billion for the shuttle”

    Which is retiring. The Shuttle does not pose a $3.1 billion opportunity cost to NASA or the Amercian taxpayer going forward.

    Think before you post.

    “Yes, we get it. Bush bad. Obama good.”

    That wasn’t my post.

    Read, comprehend, and think before you post.

    Lawdy…

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Yes, we get it. Bush bad. Obama good…

    if that is what you got from my post then 1) you were predisposed to think that or 2) your reading comprehension of the totality of my post here has not been good.

    In human spaceflight policy, which is the subject here, it is hard in my view to argue that the Bush the last years were well done…or a good thing for American space efforts and a space future.

    Clinton (as he did so many things) left the deployment of the space station on a well established track…all Bush and his flunkies had to do was to continue the process…and while they did do that, in the process they lost a space shuttle orbiter.

    It is important to recall that, because bad management starts from “the head down” and what Linda H and the rest of the “genius” who were running Columbia’s last mission did was in fact no different then say Rummy sending not enough troops to Iraq prefering instead his own goofy notions of how to run a war.

    But the loss of 7 lives and an orbiter aside, the Bush administration managed in deploying the space station to more or less finish the fight. There is little left for the Obama folks to do there.

    What Bush and his toady’s did not do was 1) plan well for the shuttle retirement and or 2 execute the formative stages of the “next program” all that well.

    It was easy to say “we are not flying the shuttle” after a certain date…but to have an orderly transition to something else…well thats not gone so well. you and Whittington and the rest of the apologist dont seem to get it, but even if Cx was short of money, it spent 10 billion dollars and really there is not a lot operational to show for it.

    What Obama was left with in space policy was what he inherited in a lot of places…either UXB’s that are now popping off or a load of turd sandwiches that are in all cases very bitter to eat…and the massive and disruptive layoff of the work force in NASA contractors is one of those. I realize the right wing wants to blame it on Obama…and yes he has not stopped it…but then again that takes something that the nation is after 8 years of bush short of…discretionary money.

    That does not mean that I think Obama has done perfectly in general or in the specifics of space policy or politics…in fact I think that his (Obama’s) political shop is pretty tone deaf…in my words; they couldnt sell cocaine to Charlie Sheen or pawn call girls off on that Senator from LA…

    but in the case of space policy…he has taken a very bad situation and given the future a chance.

    you are a troll…and mostly I ignore you, but when you misstate my conclusions or actions, you are going to find I am not the Democratic party…I can actually pound back.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    The leftist lunatic fringe would have done anything to cancel Constellation.

    And yet how many Republicans voted for the NASA budget that cancelled Constellation?

    That was easy to debunk…

  • Doug Lassiter

    “No, the electorate delegated the problem to the Bush Administration who came up with a terrific program.”

    Excuse me? The electorate delegated the problem to Bush? Oh my. No, the Bush administration was properly embarrassed (largely by the aerospace development industry) about the billions per year that were being sunk into the ISS/Shuttle operations hole. VSE was a nice vision, the implementation of which turned out to be problematic, especially when it was grafted oddly onto lunar outposts. It was about development, rather than operations.

    Support for it in Congress was largely reflexive. Metal could be cut in their districts.

    Had the electorate really been asked about what to do about human space flight, they probably would have been happy with Shuttles and ISS, maybe after some budget paring as frosting. In the end, they would have been right, if just in that Constellation, as conceived, was unexecutable.

  • John Malkin

    These quotes are from the final CAIB report. As you can see not much has changed and Congress doesn’t get it or doesn’t care which is sad. Goals must equal Dollars (period)!

    “One is the lack, over the past three decades, of any national mandate providing NASA a compelling mission requiring human presence in space.”

    “NASA has had to participate in the give and take of the normal political process in order to obtain the resources needed to carry out its programs. NASA has usually failed to receive budgetary support consistent with its ambitions. The result, as noted throughout Part Two of the report, is an organization straining to do too much with too little.”

    Full Report: http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/default.html

  • John Malkin

    Here is another great quote:

    “As Apollo 11 Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, one of the members of the recent Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, commented in the Commissionʼs November 2002 report, “Attempts at developing breakthrough space transportation systems have proved illusory.” The Board believes that the country should plan for future space transportation capabilities without making them dependent on technological breakthroughs.”

  • John Malkin

    The one thing I liked most about Constellation was it gave structure to the US HSF vision (it should be International HSF) unfortunately it became associated too much with the primary failing program under its umbrella. I would like to see a high level goal oriented structural umbrella for HSF. It doesn’t matter the name but a good name helps in sell the budget to Congress. Having said that, it needs to have realistic goals. I don’t think Congress should get hung up on debating this “structure”. I just think it would be useful. We have it in a way now with scientific robotic missions.

    People have a lot of frustration in and around HSF. We expected to be up in space already, decades ago. I don’t mean an elite few but a large core. The common man going BEO is not soon but I think within 20 years the average joe can get to orbit for a price under $25,000. Hope springs eternal.

  • @John Malkin

    Excellent points on both counts John. Thanks.

  • amightywind

    but in the case of space policy…he has taken a very bad situation and given the future a chance.

    Sorry. Obama took a program in need of simple restructuring, handed his executive authority to the likes of Eric Holdren and Lori Garver, and sent them off half-baked while a congress stared in disbelief.

    you are a troll…and mostly I ignore you, but when you misstate my conclusions or actions, you are going to find I am not the Democratic party…I can actually pound back.

    Quite a rant. I misstated nothing. George Bush has been out of power for 2 years and all your kind can do is point fingers. If you are not a dem then you are surely a Charlie Crist Republican.

  • David Davenport

    I would like to see a high level goal oriented structural umbrella for HSF.

    Human space flight is taking a back seat to unmanned space exploration.

    That’s the structure.

  • Rhyolite

    MichaelC wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    “now you are going to get so much cheap we will all be out of the space business.”

    The space business is doing just fine. It provides essential communications, navigation, reconnaissance and earth observation – functions that would be prohibitively expensive or impossible to replace.

    HSF, on the other hand, is going to go away unless it finds something useful to do at an affordable price point.

  • The one thing I liked most about Constellation was it gave structure to the US HSF vision

    I wonder if you could give some examples John.. I have no real idea what Constellation did that provided this structure.

  • Rhyolite

    John Malkin wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    “”Attempts at developing breakthrough space transportation systems have proved illusory.” The Board believes that the country should plan for future space transportation capabilities without making them dependent on technological breakthroughs.”

    Breakthroughs can’t be counted on but robust competition reliably produces incremental improvements in space transportation capabilities, which can accumulate over time.

    That being said, breakthroughs are entirely possible. One of NASA’s roles, which unfortunately has been shortchanged in recent years, should be to fund technology development and demonstrations that pave the way for future breakthroughs.

    One of the principle failings of ‘Big Rocket’ programs is that they lock us into an expensive cost basis for decades to come. They are incompatible with both incremental improvements in space transportation through competition and with any possibility of a breakthrough. They are, in other words, dead ends.

  • MichaelC

    “I think within 20 years the average joe can get to orbit for a price under $25,000.”

    Uh huh.

    Like I said, thanks alot.

  • Justin Kugler

    Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker endorsed the original FY2011 NASA budget. amightywind is just blowing partisan hot air.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ November 16th, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    Sorry. Obama took a program in need of simple restructuring, handed his executive authority to the likes of Eric Holdren and Lori Garver, and sent them off half-baked while a congress stared in disbelief.

    “simple restructuring”.

    that canard is out there, its pushed by people like you…and yet you never say how a “simple” restructuring would work or how it would fix “Cx”.

    I’ll bite…how would you restructure the program to bring it into the amount of money available…and take the “time to flight” down from decades to something politically manageable?

    As for “blaming Bush”.

    Every administration leaves two things to the next administration. Unexploded bombs…and trends in current programs….and each new administration is judged to some extent (other on its new initiatives) by how it handles both.

    In the case of Bush the last…Clinton handed him a robust economy that was going through some minor (and common sags) in only a few sectors, but which was producing record number of jobs and budget surplus…the answers that Bush came up with completely changed that trend line.

    What Obama picked up in human spaceflight was a flagship program that was trending all the wrong way AND had a UXB in it…that it needed 3 billion more dollars just to stay afloat.

    Now I am curious to see how you would do a “simple restructure”…but in the end Obama dealt with the trend lines in my view pretty well.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Human space flight is taking a back seat to unmanned space exploration.”

    Let’s examine that. If it comes to making discoveries (whether scientific or otherwise, about all but the human condition in space), yep, human space flight has shown little enabling capability, and the prospects for exceeding robotic capability are diminishing rapidly. If it comes to “soft power”, and national chest thumping, human space flight seems to do OK compare to unmanned space exploration. If it comes to “inspiration”, whatever that is, it’s probably a wash. If it comes to extraterrestrial resource development, humans in space have, thus far, done nothing at all, but may have importance someday. If it comes to laying the groundwork for transplantation of civilization to other worlds, human space flight is way ahead.

    These can all be considered important things for civilization (though are not all part of the NASA charter) so it just depends on what vehicle you’re riding in the back seat of. This has little to do with “structure”, except it’s pretty obvious that you try to do things in the most cost efficient way, and human space flight ain’t cheap.

    I too would be interested to hear about the “structure” that Constellation supplied us with. I would have said that VSE tried to supply some policy structure, but the only structure that Constellation supplied was what turned out to be an unaffordable, and somewhat artificial one, with a single destination of arguable value.

  • Major Tom

    “If it comes to making discoveries (whether scientific or otherwise, about all but the human condition in space), yep, human space flight has shown little enabling capability, and the prospects for exceeding robotic capability are diminishing rapidly. If it comes to “soft power”, and national chest thumping, human space flight seems to do OK compare to unmanned space exploration. If it comes to “inspiration”, whatever that is, it’s probably a wash. If it comes to extraterrestrial resource development, humans in space have, thus far, done nothing at all, but may have importance someday.”

    Good analysis.

    FWIW…

  • As the Augustine panel noted, if we’re not doing this to settle space, it’s a waste of money. But the people who came up with Constellation clearly weren’t doing it to settle space.

  • MichaelC

    The people who came up with constellation were as a first step trying to create a pair of vehicles- one to carry people, the other to carry heavy payloads. Whether these vehicles were going to be used to “settle space” is not clear unless you could see into the future.

    “Clearly” you are once again engaging in “making excuses for smaller vehicles.”

  • Whether these vehicles were going to be used to “settle space” is not clear unless you could see into the future.

    They weren’t going to be used to settle space because vehicles that are going to be used to settle space must cost much less than several billion dollars per mission for a crew of four people.

  • John Malkin

    @ Trent Waddington

    I didn’t mean to imply that Constellation was successful at providing a realistic framework only that it defined goals and technological developments required to meet its goals.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/news/ESAS_report.html

    I’m just saying we should have some framework for the HSF goals and it should define the programs. Like mission to increase our understanding of Earth, Finding life, Climate History on Mars, Evolution of the Moon, Living in Deep Space, Living off the Land and many other general goals. This should drive the missions and equipment we acquire and develop. It would give direction for new technology development programs. We need to define why we go to space. Aviation, Life Sciences and Robotics have clearer goals.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Rand –

    “As the Augustine panel noted, if we’re not doing this to settle space, it’s a waste of money.”

    But we already are in space, passengers on spaceship Earth.

    “But the people who came up with Constellation clearly weren’t doing it to settle space.”

    I’ll disagree with you on that. Griffin. like many space enthusiasts, had an obsession with manned flight to Mars, and engaged in fantasies wirh it.
    $10 Billion dollars worth.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 17th, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Whether these vehicles were going to be used to “settle space” is not clear unless you could see into the future.

    Do you foresee NASA being the one to “settle space”? If so, then maybe they would have used the NASA launchers.

    But I don’t see NASA expanding our presence in space – helping to establish it, yes, like with the ISS and other leading-edge exploration. But being the driving force behind dramatic expansion of humanity into space, no.

    What would the future look like with NASA running an HLV transportation service? How would they price their service in the competitive marketplace? How much taxpayer money would they use for marketing or creating new markets?

    Once you start asking these types of questions, it becomes clear that NASA cannot use their HLV’s to lead the way into space, because they have no budget or expertise to market their services, and there could even be laws that would limit their ability to compete for business with commercial companies like ULA or SpaceX.

    NASA building and running their own launchers is an anachronism – it reflects the beginning of the space era, not the future.

  • But we already are in space, passengers on spaceship Earth.

    [rolling eyes]

    Griffin. like many space enthusiasts, had an obsession with manned flight to Mars

    He had a funny way of showing it. And that doesn’t constitute settling space, which requires affordable space access.

  • MichaelC

    “NASA cannot use their HLV’s to lead the way into space, because they have no budget or expertise to market their services, and there could even be laws that would limit their ability to compete for business with commercial companies like ULA or SpaceX.”

    I do not agree. I believe any human space flight beyond earth orbit is going to require the support of a HLV. Putting together spaceships 25 tons at a time will fail miserably and this will probably be realized early on.

    I always get the same canned responses when I say this. The regulars ALWAYS say something to the effect, “you know nothing and are completely stupidly wrong.”

    There, now you do not have to waste time typing. You’re welcome.

  • Vladislaw

    MichaelC wrote:

    “Whether these vehicles were going to be used to “settle space” is not clear unless you could see into the future.”

    The best year of the shuttle we launched about 60 people into LEO. If constellation would have went forward, with the deorbiting of ISS at the end of 2015, We would have dropped down to 8 people per year. I believe if “settle space” was the goal it was a backwards move towards that goal.

    We have to create the infrastructure that has a lot higher capacity than that. As you watch the shuttle launch being delayed over and over, which was a common occurance, do you honestly believe Constellation was going to do routine launches? We can’t even settle LEO, or GEO ( where billions of assets are flying) and you think NASA can settle another body?

  • DCSCA

    Justin Kugler wrote @ November 17th, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Gingrich wanted to disband NASA in the 1990s. His trial balloon was quickly shot down then.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I always get the same canned responses when I say this.

    That’s because you keep repeating the same failed arguments after you’ve been proven wrong. The need for HLVs is an article of faith for you, it must satisfy some deep psychological need. But manned spaceflight is not served well by faith-based initiatives, it needs the rational and pragmatic approach people have been pointing out to you.

  • byeman

    “I always get the same canned responses when I say this. The regulars ALWAYS say something to the effect, “you know nothing and are completely stupidly wrong.””

    Acknowledging that you are wrong is a good first step.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ November 17th, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Gingrich wanted to disband NASA in the 1990s. His trial balloon was quickly shot down then.

    I dont recall which Pope from long ago who said “Now that we have the papacy let us enjoy it”…but that phrase comes to mind as I watch the GOP getting ready to run the House.

    For all its rhetoric the GOP has never been very good at cutting spending…in fact a guess would be absent the TARP and Stim bill the GOP has in the last 20-30 years been far more “spend happy” then anything the Dems could have imagined.

    And as things have gone along, the “advocacy groups” that have grown up around the spending have gotten their hold in the GOP just as much as they have the Dems. Already you see people in the GOP trying to pull the “lets not cut national defense” and then the next step “well this program or that program is part of national defense”. There is even one tea party “elect” Congressman who wants his national health care “NOW”.

    David Frum who is an interesting soul has a book called “Dead right” and it is a fascinating look at the Gingrich years where the GOP could talk a big game, but just as soon as the interest groups and protest cranked up…well not so much.

    My guess is that the next year is going to see the Genius in the House try and figure out a way to cut spending to try and curb the budget issue…and when they figure out that this is almost impossible in substantive way and more or less makes them as unpopular as the Dems are now…

    they are going to go toward revenue (as Reagan called them “revenue enhancers”) and then the fun is going to start. I would be very surprised to see NASA go away…what is changing is their mission.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ November 18th, 2010 at 11:42 am

    It a mission to no place. The ‘compromise’ is to dissolve NASA as a separate, independent agency w/all that goes with that sturcturing in the Federal bureaucracy and make it a division of the DoD and the survivors become ‘civilian’ contractors to a DoD operation. The duplication of facilities, personnel, etc., is unsustainable when you have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent to keep it running. And longer term space projects may actually have a layer of protection under the guise of ‘national security’ operating from DoD and less exposed to easier efforts to cut budgets. As it stands now, an independent NASA appears sorely out of sync with 2010 needs. It’s a Cold War relic and the Cold War ended.

Leave a Reply to David Davenport Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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