Congress, NASA

Senate pushes back on NASA HLV report

The full report NASA submitted to Congress this week on development of the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle spacecraft is now available online. The introduction of the report had this to say about the schedule and cost of developing the heavy-lifter included in the authorization act (emphasis added):

Guidance from the Administrator has established three principles for development of any future systems for exploration. These systems must be affordable, sustainable, and realistic. To date, trade studies performed by the Agency have yet to identify heavy-lift and capsule architectures that would both meet all SLS requirements and these goals. For example, a 2016 first flight of the SLS does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out year funding levels. Based on the guidance in the Authorization Act to take advantage of existing designs and hardware, the Agency has selected Reference Vehicle Designs for both of these vehicles as bases from which to work and which we believe most closely align to the requirements and goals of the Authorization Act. However, to be clear, neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor the schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act. Additionally, it remains to be determined what level of appropriations NASA will receive in FY 2011 or beyond — a factor that will impact schedule as well.

A few paragraphs later (again, emphasis added):

Currently, our SLS studies have shown that while cost is not a major discriminator among the design options studied, none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions, based upon existing cost models, historical data, and traditional acquisition approaches. Operational costs will have to be scrutinized and reductions from current projections will be needed in order to ensure affordable operations and so that funds are available for other necessary Exploration developments such as long-duration habitats and landers. A feature of the Shuttle/Ares-derived reference vehicle is that it enables leveraging of current systems, current knowledge base, existing hardware and potentially current contracts, thereby providing schedule and early-year cost advantages. However, a 2016 first flight does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out year funding levels, although NASA is continuing to explore more innovative procurement and development approaches to determine whether it can come closer to this goal.

If the agency was expecting some sympathy from Congress, they didn’t get it, at least from key leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee, who issued a brief but stern statement Wednesday in response to the report:

We appreciate NASA’s report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It’s the law. NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently — and, it must be a priority.

In other words, go back and try again.

80 comments to Senate pushes back on NASA HLV report

  • Major Tom

    “WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senate Commerce Committee Members… issued a joint statement responding to a NASA report this week in which the space agency says it cannot build a capsule and heavy-lift rocket based on the cost and schedule outlined by Congress… ‘NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently – and, it must be a priority.'”

    It can be cone on the “cost and schedule outlined by Congress”. But not if it’s constrained to the legacy Apollo infrastructure, huge Shuttle workforce, and unaffordable Constellation systems that arose from those “billions of dollars in previous investments.”

    The Senate authorizers have to decide which they want. Do they want an HLV and capsule that fit the budget and can be fly this decade? Or do they just want to maintain Shuttle and Constellation contracts, infrastructure, and workforce — i.e., votes?

    The former has repeatedly proven to be incompatible with the latter, both in practice and in studies.

    FWIW…

  • Oh, I’m quite sure NASA will go back and try again. They just needed to check the “practicability” box first.

    ~Jon

  • Chance

    “We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently”

    Faith is a wonderful thing. I’m not sure it’s what you should base a rocket program on, but it’s still a wonderful thing.

  • CharlesHouston

    I appreciate the views of both sides – certainly NASA has looked at the situation and given their best estimate. On the other side, Congress has a point that NASA could do different – they could deliver something that met the letter of the law.

    The far greater point, the huge point, is that Congress is saying that they DO NOT trust their NASA (confirmed by them, operating under regulations set by them, hiring people under regulations set by them, etc) to do their bidding.

    I have a big problem with Congress giving such relatively specific details rather than setting out goals to pursue! Even John F Kennedy should NEVER have put a “end of decade” deadline on the effort to land a person on the Moon. That puts unreasonable schedule pressure on the system. If Congress feels that NASA (or DoE, or DoD, etc) is wasting time and money – get some new people in there. Congress should specify that NASA will… develop a capsule to get people into space, develop a rocket to get stuff into space, etc etc. Then leave it up to the people you have put into place – to accomplish your goals.

    Congress is setting us up for a crisis such as a program that delivers unsafe systems, etc. The Shuttle, for all of the criticism, is a very very safe vehicle when flown inside it’s certified limits. The Congress is asking for a system that is unsafe, inefficient, unusable, in any limits.

  • James T

    “Hold on there buddy, we don’t need engineers telling us politicians how much and how long it takes to build a rocket. When was the last time YOU won a popularity contest?”

    Looks like they chose IGNORE AND MOVE FORWARD (referring to my post on the previous news item)… why did I think they would be smarter than that? There’s another more full report coming up in the future, guess we’ll see what happens then… but my hopes for a push back just got trampled.

    There’s also the FY2012 budget proposal in a few months… should I be anticipating a feeling of deja vu?

  • Miles G

    Maybe some of these Congress people are onto NASA. I think they need to understand, why, after NASA has developed the technologies and learned how to do what previously had been thought impossible, does it get so much more difficult, so much more time consuming, and so much more expensive.

    Orion is a good example. It offers essentially nothing new. It is not more sophisticated. All of its technologies are known. Almost all of its hardware is previously flown in some form (or could have been). Everyone seems to have said that this is an advanced Gemini; Gemini was developed in the early 1960s when we barely knew how to do these things; it was developed in three years at a cost of, in today’s dollars, about $5 billion. So why has Orion taken this long, and why has what was well known technologically become so complicated managerially, and why isn’t it flying?

    NASA’s problem is not primarily technical or budgetary.

  • HotShotX

    “We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently”

    Neither congressional law, nor beliefs, override technological and financial realities.

    ~HotShotX

  • Vladislaw

    ““We appreciate NASA’s report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It’s the law.”

    What material wasn’t submitted?

    Did Those committee members just give NASA permission to pursue ANY option for heavy lift, or was it go back and figure out how to keep all personal and utilize shuttle derived hardware and operations?

  • When

    Basically, there are only two factors here. Time and money. Congress says do it with x billion a year and be done by 2016.
    NASA says it can’t be done by 2016, so on x billion a year when can it be done? 2017, 2020? I’m sure Congress will be glad to budget that x billion a year beyond 2016 if needed.
    Obviously if they say they can’t do it they MUST know how much money it will take.
    So, just tell Congress that! Tell them when you CAN do it by.
    I think Bolden doesn’t want to do it and just saying no will get them off the hook. SORRY Bolden, NASA needs it and Congress has authorized it. Get to work and tell us what date is feasable then. I’m sure Congress will keep that funding coming beyond 2016 if you need it.
    Supposedly, Augustine said we wouldn’t have a heavy lift until 2030 or some nonsense.
    So, if 2018 (for example) is when a heavy lift will be ready isn’t this way sooner than Constellation and everyone can celebrate!

  • And now! Starring Sen. Nelson as Moses, Sen. Vitter as Aaron and Sen. Hutchison as their sister Miriam to sing “The song of the Shuttle-based HLV!”

    Sen Nelson raises his staff to part the Red Sea!…and the evil hoards who say it isn’t possible will be thrown into the Sea!

    No, somehow Bill Nelson as Charleton Heston doesn’t quite fit, folks.

  • NASA Fan

    Let the dysfunction begin!

  • NASA Fan

    ..excuse me…’let the dysfunction continue’!

  • Major Tom

    The NASA FY 2010 Authorization Act provides $6.9 billion for SLS over FY 2011-13. Assuming a similar amount of spending in FY 2014-16, that’s nearly $14 billion with which to build a 70-ton HLV by 2016. So NASA’s Shuttle/Ares-derived solution must be at least at $15 billion-plus vehicle, and is likely much more given the language in the letter to Congress.

    Not that I think SpaceX has _the_ solution , but it’s worthwhile to note that:

    “SpaceX will respond to NASA’s heavy-lift launch vehicle study with concepts that can carry 150 tons to orbit…

    Based on a roughly evenly split $10 billion budget for heavy lift, with half for the boost stage and half for the upper stage, ‘we’re confident we could get a fully operational vehicle to the pad for $2.5 billion—and not only that, I will personally guarantee it,’ Musk says. In addition, the final product would be a fully accounted cost per flight of $300 million, he asserts.”

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awst/2010/11/29/AW_11_29_2010_p28-271784.xml

    FWIW…

  • Bennett

    First of all, Cance.

    “Dead nuts on” is the phrase I was looking for, and I found it.

    MT, you always provide the perspective.

    Jon, funny! Best of luck with your work, we’re following your progress.

    @CharlesHouston You expect them to accomplish that? Without grandstanding? Okay, sure.

    @James T “my hopes for a push back just got trampled.”

    Well said, but all we have to do is anticipate SpaceX and Orbital.

    @Miles G… Exactly.

  • Coastal Ron

    We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently

    In other words, la la la la la la la la – just spend the money in our districts!

  • The far greater point, the huge point, is that Congress is saying that they DO NOT trust their NASA (confirmed by them, operating under regulations set by them, hiring people under regulations set by them, etc) to do their bidding.

    So? Does Congress think that they’ll get a different answer from the GAO? As long as Congress insists on overconstraining the problem, it will remain insoluble.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Elon Musk, in his post-COTS Demo1 flight, made the point that if you stick with legacy systems, you inherit legacy costs. We could add that if you stick with legacy contracting and management et al, etc, etc.
    Guess the Porkers are still running the show and it’s a kind of last-gasp effort. If not, then they don’t understand that it’s like sticking with an IBM 700/7000 series machine when you could use a desk top PC. The end result may be the same but the way you get there and the associated cost are dramatically different.
    While this comedy drags out, the more time there is for the Shuttle systems to close up shop and the layoffs to continue. I’m sorry for the people but this is certainly nothing new in industry. Time moves on… and the newer commercial companies continue to progress. This time next year, SpaceX will be delivering cargo, Orbital won’t be far off it as well. Who knows, CST-100 and Dragon Crew Vehicle may be on the way as well.
    NASA will either be mired in politics and irrelevent except as a funding source or moving forward with commercial in COTS fashion.

  • For a full report, it’s pretty damned hard to find.

    Come to think of it, anybody else think NASA’s website blows?

  • Coastal Ron

    In this sad drama that Congress has created, the jokes write themselves. For instance:

    Senator Nelson said: “If NASA couldn’t build a rocket on the budget it was given, we ought to question whether we can build a rocket

    In this case “we” is Congress, and he really is right – they really should question whether Congress can build a rocket on that budget and schedule, and the answer would be NO.

    Nelson already knows this, so he must be participating in this charade for some potential political advantage, which I doubt will happen. If the HLV proposals come back with two or more possibilities that are significantly less than the congressional franken-launcher, then it will be Congress that will be on the defensive.

  • DCSCA

    They can do it. It may not be what they want, but they can do it– and force other elements of the agency to do without. Although to paraphrase Administrator Tom Paine, you formulate the goal then assemble the budget to attain it, not assemble the budget and see what goals you can squeeze into it.

  • common sense

    I wonder if the Congress gives as much thought to all and every thing they do. Considering what they did back for Iraq I would assume so but come on. NASA says they cannot do it BUT Congress knows better? I think NASA ought to tell Congress how to pass laws since obviously Congress now sees itself as an engineering outfit.

  • Perhaps it can be done affordably and efficiently, but not if Congress is also specifying the design.

  • Whoops, pressed Submit too soon. Congress can set such parameters as the minimum mass to orbit, but there should be some compelling reason for the value of the minimum, some payload of that mass which cannot be assembled in orbit from multiple smaller launches. No such payload exists. If anyone cares to provide an example of such a payload (70 tons or 130 tons, all one unit, cannot be assembled in orbit from pieces launched on existing smaller rockets) , I’m all ears.

    If Congress wants to mandate using the existing workforce, then they have to accept the costs that implies. Insisting that NASA find a way to make it work, using and paying the existing workforce but to magically still have money is ridiculous.

  • Rhyolite

    “none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions, based upon existing cost models, historical data, and traditional acquisition approaches.”

    Time to try a different acquisition approach or scrap the program.

    “Oh, I’m quite sure NASA will go back and try again. They just needed to check the “practicability” box first.”

    Son-of-Ares V could well be the first part of an argument that goes “SD vehicles are unfordable, therefore the only option is a [fill in the blank]”, where the blank is filled by Atlas Phase II or Falcon XX.

  • Moose

    It can be done efficiently and affordably. OR it can use existing Constellation and STS contracts/workforce/hardware.

    PICK ONE

    Otherwise, can’t be done.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Heh. I hate being right. I really, really hate it.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Here is the question that the various congresspeople should be prepared to answer – if a SDLV cannot be build on time & on budget, do they want them to spend that money on it anyway?

    I have my suspicions

  • Robert G. Oler

    Sir Humphrey would be pleased (Yes minister, Yes Prime Minister)…this is the normal give and take back and forth as we move from a program that wont work to something else.

    The longer it takes to develop a HLV the more the shuttle infrastructure dies, the people go away and the cost mount.

    Before long Falcon9 Super heavy or Delta IV super heavy or both will seem like it was Congress idea…

    “Yes Minster”

    Robert G. Oler

  • The Senate authorizers have to decide which they want. Do they want an HLV and capsule that fit the budget and can be fly this decade? Or do they just want to maintain Shuttle and Constellation contracts, infrastructure, and workforce — i.e., votes?

    Slowly but surely reality is starting to sink in, but don’t count on the intelligence of politicians to see it in time.

    NASA is in for a big-time shake-up, like it or not.

  • Before long Falcon9 Super heavy or Delta IV super heavy or both will seem like it was Congress idea…

    “Yes Minster”

    LOL, I think we discussed Delta IV Super Heavy before, didn’t we Oler?

    “Yes Minister.” Love it!

  • Martijn Meijering

    Son-of-Ares V could well be the first part of an argument that goes “SD vehicles are unfordable, therefore the only option is a [fill in the blank]“, where the blank is filled by Atlas Phase II or Falcon XX.

    That argument would be false however. Phase II is far more than is needed and even Phase I is only nice to have. In any event such decisions are best left to the market (and funded with private funds once they become economically viable).

    Somehow most people are still assuming that the first thing to do is to develop a new launch vehicle. This is dangerous nonsense as Akin’s 39th law humorously explains. What we need is a lander (or orbital transfer craft), since we already have launch vehicles.

    The lander could provide both exploration capability and a substantial commercial propellant launch market, which will enable commercial development of cheap lift. This may well be the only practical way to develop it, as well as making sure that the capability will be available to commercial users.

    But I expect the senators will not want exploration, preferring a massive make-work R&D project instead, claiming that will be necessary if we want to do exploration without an HLV. That would be ironic, since it is essentially what Obama proposed. I could live with that. The justification wouldn’t be true, and the plan wouldn’t be optimal, or even close to optimal, but it would be a lot better than what was planned.

  • Paul D.

    The senators are whining that NASA is no longer going along with the charade, as Griffin had been. What, honest statements that the program isn’t workable? How are we going to sell the pork when you keep telling the truth?

  • Damn the torpedoes, full pork ahead.

    Different Senators, same self-absorption.

    Commercial Crew and Cargo is the only way out of this insanity. And it can’t happen soon enough.

  • With apologies to Mel Brooks:

    “To protect our phoney baloney jobs, we have to protect the phoney baloney jobs in our district, gentlemen!”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Support for a HLV is going to dim among the “space senators” when slowly but surely they recognize 9as most are doing) that its not going to be SDV and that a SDV is not affordable.

    We are going to go through a few more months of back and forth here as that reality slowly becomes the political norm…but in the end thats what it going to kill the “big lifter”.

    The reality is that 1) there is no appetite for any human exploration of space beyond GEO…2) there is no real government payload for a “large heavy” and 3) basically it is not affordable by commercial ops.

    What the SDV talk is all about is trying to maintain the jobs in different districts and different representatives saying “we tried to hold on to the jobs”…but all the winds are blowing against it.

    This is just how things die off…its kind of like Terry Schiavo…the plug has been pulled, the corpse just is dying…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Florida Today on this silliness:

    http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110113/NEWS02/101130314/1086/Senators+to+NASA++You+can+–+and+will+–+build+big+rocket

    “NASA does not believe this goal is achievable based on a combination of the current funding profile estimate, traditional approaches to acquisitions and currently considered vehicle architectures,” said the report, which was posted on website nasaspaceflight.com and later released by Congress.

    “We will not commit to a date that has a low probability of being achieved.”

    [U.S. Sen. Bill] Nelson [D-FL] and colleagues — U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.; U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; and U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La. — begged to differ:

    “We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently — and it must be a priority.”

  • And another NASA story in today’s Florida Today:

    http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110113/NEWS02/101130317/1007/NASA+research+money+wasted++report+says

    NASA is wasting more than $2 million a year in research funding targeted for small businesses, two senators complained Wednesday.

    Money from the Small Business Innovation Research program was supposed to stimulate technological innovation. Instead, the agency’s inspector general said the program paid vendors multiple times for the same projects.

  • amightywind

    Bolden needs to stop whining about funding and prioritize. HSF comes first fully funded. Then take a chainsaw to the rest of the programs to fit within the constraints. My guess is it means at least a 10% RIF. If he can’t do it congress should do it for him. I miss Mike Griffin and his can do attitude.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 8:39 am

    I dont know what Jay R is doing in this, cant think of a WV connection, but the letter “begging to differ” is from the usual suspects and if I was Charlie Bolden I would just ignore it.

    NASA is in the process of fullfilling the obligations of the law, and clearly has a policy direction from the executive branch that is at odds with a few pork senators…so unless the boys and girls on the pork train have more horsepower then I have seen so far…so what.

    IN the end this is starting to mirror every other change of direction that the executive branch has initiated. Many years ago Ronaldus the Great wanted to reactivate the Iowa class BB’s. The Senate wanted to reactive as a measure the remaining LA class heavy cruisers.

    Imagine this. AFter the Navy did a unbiased study it was far more expensive to redo the gun cruisers then the Battleships…The Senate Armed Services folks particularly the Dems were aghast…but guess what got recommissioned.

    Charlie Bolden will go down in history as having the most influence on the direction of NASA since Webb…

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Charlie Bolden will go down in history as having the most influence on the direction of NASA since Webb…

    An odd, over the top statement. With all respect to Bolden’s resume, the leadership vacuum persists. Bolden did a very poor job rallying support for Obamaspace in congress, even with comfortable democrat congressional majorities. America literally recoiled from the ridiculous proposal. Since then he has actively resisted the congressional compromise. He continues to do so. I see Bolden as politically isolated and weakened. With Obama gearing up for reelection, Bolden is a political liability. He’ll not last 2011. Perhaps this latest instance of insubordination will be the event that triggers his departure.

  • pennypincher

    I’ve been wondering for a while whether Charlie Bolden had really come to grips with where his problems are. This report gives me considerable hope that he has got it.

    The key sentence is: “none of the design options … appeared to be affordable based upon … traditional acquisition approaches”

    In other words — it is not the design that matters so much as how we buy it. If we first must keep the standing army standing and then buy rockets with what is left over, we can’t buy them any time soon, if ever. In order to build new things we have to reduce the standing army. That means buying things, ideally at fixed prices, rather than having NASA design things, make up whatever requirements they dream up that drive cost, and then throwing them over the wall to be built on cost plus contracts, constantly changing the design throughout the process. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and ULA are just as able as SpaceX and Bigelow and Orbital Sciences to do business in a more “pay for results but get out of our face” way and the best people in those organizations are chomping at the bit to try. (The bean-counters and near-retirement managers are of course terrified)

    I have to praise Charlie Bolden for finally deciding to have NASA say in public what has been said behind closed doors for quite some time. Everyone but Congress knew that the “compromise” would never result in something flying but didn’t dare say so. I finally see the Marine officer I hoped to see. “Sir, respecfully, we can’t do that!”

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 9:51 am

    America literally recoiled from the ridiculous proposal……

    not really . America and most Americans really didnt care…what was amazing to me in terms of political power is how badly the “save Constellation” folks did in terms of rallying public support.

    Pete Wilson in TX 22 couldnt even get a good head of steam up in his district once you got out of the NASA suburbs. He got surprising receptions in various places when he started babbling on about Cx…I’ll never forget one question from a woman who stood to lose her management job at Continental over the merger…she asked him “why are NASA and space people special when they lose their jobs”.

    You (or I although I do) dont have to like the direction that Bolden is taking NASA to recognize that he is changing the direction of the agency. The agency has simply been coasting since Apollo letting inertia take it in a particular vector…and Bolden has changed that.

    You may not like the direction but to now acknowledge the change is ludicrious. almost as good as “the falcon second stage wont make it into orbit” or something like that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    pennypincher wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 10:15 am

    well written…and you can see where Bolden is heading with this…you hit the key sentence. change is a coming

    Robert G. Oler

  • “We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently — and it must be a priority.”

    It’s a new faith-based initiative.

  • The powers that be at NASA are trying to kill off any STS derived HLV approach by resurrecting the Ares-5 Classic. The SLS they detail in this report is nearly identical to the recommendations of ESAS minus the shaft (ie Ares-1).

    What remains to be done, and the glaring omission in the report, is the entry level STS HLV better known as the Jupiter-130 (10m payload diameter, +70 tons).

    Long story short, Lori is using a Judo move on the Griffin camp and like all good extremists locked in mortal combat with each other they continue to ignore the clear compromise (scope, budget, schedule, risk, performance, politics) within their midst.

    The very same configuration NASA engineers came up with before the Space Shuttle’s first flight, resurrected after Challenger, resurrected again after Columbia, promoted before ESAS, promoted during ESAS, promoted after ESAS, presented before the Augustine Commission, and placed in their final report to Congress, but yet somehow is missing in NASA SLS report to Congress. The mind boggles.

    Earth to NASA, you have one more chance to get it right. The budget requires that all the paths to the Ares-5 Classic (ie the Jupiter-252 Heavy Stretch) must begin at the Jupiter-130. Besides I think 10m diameter payloads of +70 tons should be enough if the spacecraft are placed into to orbit dry.

    P.S. And would everyone, including NASA, please stop listing the requirements as metric tons. The Congress/President clearly specified tons 70-100 tons (130 ton with upperstage) not ‘tonnes’ (ie 70-100mT, 130mT).

  • amightywind

    P.S. And would everyone, including NASA, please stop listing the requirements as metric tons.

    NASA usually specifies systems in metric tons. See the famous Mars Observer incident in 1998. I prefer the canonical units because it will lead to larger rockets!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 10:36 am

    well you are learning how politics works. I see great sadness over at NASAspaceflight.com

    It isnt Lori, its Charlie…he doesnt want (nor do most of the SES) a SDV. No matter if it is “jupiter” Or whatever…it is unaffordable.

    Any “compromise” that retains any Shuttle derived hardware retains shuttle infrastructure and nothing about that is affordable…there may even be questions now if the ET is being made “safely”.

    Charlie has to kill of any of the shuttle system or the agency essentially dies.

    You should have figured this out before you invested a lot of time in “Jupiter”…the Augustine commission was doing EVERYTHING but saying what I have said…

    As I predicted sometime ago…nothing shuttle derived is going to survive.

    (wow even the Reverend HUM HUM Jackson would be pleased with the above line).

    Sorry Stephen…its ending

    Robert G. Oler

  • It isnt Lori, its Charlie…he doesnt want (nor do most of the SES) a SDV.

    As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 10:36 am

    The powers that be at NASA are trying to kill off any STS derived HLV approach by resurrecting the Ares-5 Classic.

    That would be the strategy that I would use too.

    What remains to be done, and the glaring omission in the report, is the entry level STS HLV better known as the Jupiter-130 (10m payload diameter, +70 tons).

    Ah, but Congress brought this on themselves since they originally stated they wanted a 70T class launcher that could be evolved to 130T, but then made noise that they really want NASA to build the 130T first and skip the smaller 70T version. That’s the beauty in all of this, in that Congress eliminated any lower cost options (like Jupiter-130), not NASA.

    Pardon my glee, but I am one of those that thinks an HLV of any kind is a launcher without a mission, regardless if NASA builds it or NASA has someone else build it. In essence, an HLV postpones our ability to conduct HSF beyond LEO, not make it easier.

  • To be (a bit) less flippant.

    Whether you think we need heavy lift. Whether you think we should mine the moon, or go to Mars, or capture an asteroid, or concentrate on promoting the creation of viable commercial lift. Whether you think crewed space is the way to go or that we should concentrate on uncrewed planetary probes and deep space telescopes.

    None of these folks in Congress care. They just don’t.

    It’s all about…
    1. Contracts for campaign contributors and
    2. Jobs for voters in their district/state

    …and in that order.

    Understand that, and you’ll start to understand what’s been happening and what is going to happen over the coming months and years.

    Understand one other thing. In spite of NASA’s best efforts to put contracts in 435 congressional districts, in most of them its small potatoes. So, even if the representative in some district has World Wide Widgets making shuttle-derived widgets, he’s got a lot more people making plumb-bobs at PB International, and that’s his first priority. And that’s most of them.

    If you want to convince Congress to fund your favorite NASA goal, that’s what you face.

    And that’s why we need to separate spaceflight in the U.S. from government funding. IMHO, now’s our best opportunity to start.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 11:48 am

    It isnt Lori, its Charlie…he doesnt want (nor do most of the SES) a SDV.

    As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about…………………….

    you can have your viewpoint all you want, but I am pretty certain, in this instance of mine or I would not have stated it. My boss is the person who took over from Charlie at MAW 3. he knows him far better then you.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Pardon my glee, but I am one of those that thinks an HLV of any kind is a launcher without a mission,..

    exactly. there are no government payloads for it…and no corporate payload can afford it…its that simple

    Robert G. Oler

  • cuddihy

    “What remains to be done, and the glaring omission in the report, is the entry level STS HLV better known as the Jupiter-130 (10m payload diameter, +70 tons).”

    Ah, but Congress brought this on themselves since they originally stated they wanted a 70T class launcher that could be evolved to 130T, but then made noise that they really want NASA to build the 130T first and skip the smaller 70T version. That’s the beauty in all of this, in that Congress eliminated any lower cost options (like Jupiter-130), not NASA.

    What noise? The 70T number was in legislation, the “noise” was not. So you have to follow the legislation, correct? I forsee a required NASA response of J-130 as well.

  • byeman

    “HSF comes first fully funded.”

    Yes, CCDev and CCTS and not SLS.

  • Robert G. Oler

    rich kolker wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    thats a good post. but there is one other problem. (sun has just set where I am assume it is doing it with you as well…I am east of you a bit!)

    the big problem there is no overriding reason for human spaceflight. The B-1 might have started all this by being spread out into a lot of states…but in the end someone (sadly I did too but was wrong, there was no need for it) could reasonably make a case for it…and on substantive grounds

    When you get right down to it, the only thing that is keeping HSF now is the notion that “a big power does it” and some inertia with the ISS…otherwise it would not be done. there is right now nothing humans do in space which justifies the cost of the effort in a solid fashion.

    I was writing some reports here and watching SKY news and the “presenter” interviewed the European on the station…asked the kind of experiments he was doing the answer was babble…and even the “presenter” knew that” and went on to blowing soap bubbles or something.

    We are turning the last page in human spaceflight. Government(s) around the world have failed to find anything it does to pay the freight over the last 50 eyars…if commercial spaceflight cannot then it will simply start to die.

    I think that they can, but nothing is for sure.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    cuddihy wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    What noise? The 70T number was in legislation, the “noise” was not. So you have to follow the legislation, correct?

    There was a NASA CR that was never brought to a vote (along with all the other CR’s) that would have directed NASA to build the 130T version. Now everything is quite moot until NASA gets their appropriations, but the Senate members (Nelson, Hutchison, et al) have been quite vocal about NASA moving forward, so one interpretation that NASA could use was that Congress intended for them to build the 130T version, and skip the 70T version.

    I forsee a required NASA response of J-130 as well.

    Most likely, especially since Congress is being told their 130T version won’t meet cost or schedule constraints. They (Congress) understand the game that is going on here, and they also know what their end goal is (ATK, Michoud, etc.). But by the time NASA does respond, the industry HLV studies will be in, and I think they will push the debate in a different direction.

    My $0.02

  • you can have your viewpoint all you want, but I am pretty certain, in this instance of mine or I would not have stated it.

    Of course are. I’ve never accused you, and never would, of not believing the nutty nonsense that you babble.

  • Justin Kugler

    A good project manager notifies all of his or her stakeholders immediately if there is a conflict between the scope, cost, and schedule. NASA should be expected to do this, not excoriated for supposed “insubordination”.

  • NASA Fan

    So Robert Oler, what do you think is the next step here for NASA? I assume Charlie knew how the report would be received by Congress.

  • Robert G. Oler

    KBH is not running for reelection to the Senate in 2012.

    off to a reception at the German embassy…more latter…NASAFAN good question when I return

    Robert G. Oler

  • James T

    @ NASA Fan
    I know you were directing that to Oler, but I’ll throw in my opinion well.

    Because of the CR they still can’t cancel constellation contracts until appropriations for FY2011. When appropriations finally get done I expect “zombie” constellation to get similar earmarks. Obama might try again to push NASA in the direction he proposed before with the FY2012 budget proposal and supporters will be able to refer to these documents to fight against and accelerated HLV program.

    NASA’s hands are tied for the most part. They will continue to point out they they don’t have enough time and money to meet the design specs that the senate prescribed but until we see a change in the policy NASA will have to move forward as directed.

    I think the real question here is: what will congress do next? Regardless of the special interests that heavily influence certain districts, the GOP controlled house is claiming to make budget cuts back to 2008 levels and forbids themselves from taking actions that increase debt (although national security and health care are apparently exempt from these rules). If NASA gets a budget cut, delaying the HLV should be the easiest way to do it. If they commit to continue to waste the money they’re going to have to not just tell the people who voted for them that NASA should be considered a part of national security, they’ll have to make the voters believe it.

  • MichaelC

    Following a series of cost overruns and delays, the F-35 program is now expected to cost a whopping 382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft.

    To fight who? There is our space program right there; future generations will be incredulous.

  • amightywind

    If NASA gets a budget cut, delaying the HLV should be the easiest way to do it

    Bizarre reasoning. The SDLV and post shuttle HSF program are the central concern of the congressional committees. It is highly unlikely that they will gut SDLV’s and leave such high priorities as life sciences, or Antarctic research unscathed. NASA’s funding will be reduced. Non-core programs will feel the pain.

  • cuddihy

    Hutchison at least has announced she’s retirin in 2012. Now we need to work on Shelby.

  • After he was named Chaplain of the U.S. Senate in 1903, Edward Everett Hale was asked:

    “Do you pray for the senators, Dr. Hale?”

    His reply was:

    “No, I look at the senators and I pray for the country.”

    I suspect that today he might say:

    “I look at the senators and pray for NASA.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA Fan wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    So Robert Oler, what do you think is the next step here for NASA? I assume Charlie knew how the report would be received by Congress…

    there is a great line from the person who plays the DCI to “Jack Ryan” In Patriot Games…he says something like ” I always plow the ground for the Senators I never surprise them” something like that although (I think Morgan Freeman) does it far better then I can.

    There is a game one plays to shut things down particularly when you dont want to rub the Senators face in it, they want to look good to the home team…and you want to give them a graceful way down…and this is it.

    Charlie has played this game a long time, he knows how to do it, and is executing it perfectly.

    Before long there will start a parade of people who mean something in the industry explaining what size of a launcher is needed and pretty soon the DoD will weigh in and before long the end of the 70ton or larger rocket will be in sight. The shuttle work force is going away, the infrastructure being canned and before long Dragon will go to the space station…and if that goes off without a hitch…then its just a matter of turning off the lights.

    Before long (oh a couple of years) we will have a robust launch industry with Musk getting some good launches and starting to make money, the rest will follow, there will be a Delta IV (or Atlas with a new engine they want to do that anyway) super heavy that will start being put together (and a Falcon 9 heavy will fly)…

    and somewhere at some point people will start to fly on private vehicles and the entire world will start to change.

    The sea change if you will is not so much vehicles or destination but it is going to be getting NASA out of the operations business and of the development business of launch vehicles…and letting American inguinity really start to drive down cost…and when that happens then at some point someone is going to try something clever…like a Dragon to GEO in a space servicing contract or …..

    and with that like aviation the world offers up a lot of possibilities.

    NASA with its incompetence and the Bush/Obama near depression (coupled with deficit spending) just priced itself out of the market. The old way is going to spend a few more months dying and then new space is going to have a chance to write a chapter in spaceflight, much like American industry did in aviation.

    It is to me an exciting time

    Robert G. Oler

  • Cuddihy wrote:
    “Ah, but Congress brought this on themselves since they originally stated they wanted a 70T class launcher that could be evolved to 130T, but then made noise that they really want NASA to build the 130T first and skip the smaller 70T version. That’s the beauty in all of this, in that Congress eliminated any lower cost options (like Jupiter-130), not NASA.”

    Wrong, the NASA 2010 Authorization Act passed by unanimously in the Senate and by over 2/3 in the House and signed into law by the President specifies a first phase launch system of between 70-100 tons (not mT or tonnes) with an expansion capability of at least 130 tons (again not mT or tonnes) with an upperstage. This is exactly what the Jupiter-130 to Jupiter-246 is ‘specifically’ capable off and is hallmark of the overall DIRECT approach of maximizing the use of existing hardware and using phased approach (core followed by upperstage).

    The 2010 NASA Authorization Act is far superior to any drive buy stuff the House inserted into the CR Bill at the last minute intended to “fix the flaws” with the 2010 Authorization Act they just passed by 2/3. Flaws as defined by what Mike Griffin managed to convince them of.

    Yep your right Mike, after six years of supporting the shaft despite the advice of your engineers as to how terrible it was, we are now to believe that the new sure fire bestest approach ever is that we should now ditch the stick and go right back to the Ares-5 Classic that started this whole mess in the first place? You can’t make this stuff up.

    What people fail to understand is that the best launch system is by definition the one that generates sufficient political support in order to fund it. You must achieve both at the same time or it’s back to the drawing board. That is the primary “requirement”, everything else flows from that.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Opps not Patriot Games…but The Sum of All Fears (which I liked even though most didnt)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    What people fail to understand is that the best launch system is by definition the one that generates sufficient political support in order to fund it. ….

    that is really not accurate…by that definition the shuttle is a booming success.

    But even if that metric were accurate (and it is not) then DIRECT fails the test.

    there is little or no political support FOR IT…There is little or no support in the leadership at NASA and in Congress they never mention “DIRECT” in legislation.

    but the metric is not correct.

    The best launch system is the one that is affordable to build and affordable to operate. YOu are stuck in the old paradigm of tax payer supported space flight.

    We are about to push off into a new and wonderful direction.

    its called Free Enterprise.

    It built this country

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Cuddihy wrote:

    Nope. It was I, Coastal Ron.

    Wrong, the NASA 2010 Authorization Act passed…

    I think the key here is that when NASA said they couldn’t build the 130T launcher within the allotted budget and by 2016, the Senators did not respond by saying “you should be building the smaller 70T launcher”, they said “We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently — and, it must be a priority.

    I take that as confirmation that they really do want the 130T launcher, and not the 70T version, regardless the initial direction the authorization act says.

    The Jupiter-130 is kind of an unwanted product – perceived by some as containing too many legacy (i.e. expensive) Shuttle components, too small for grand exploration visions, and not usable for crew (side mount issues).

    Jupiter-130’s only hope is if one of the 13 companies proposing heavy-lift launch vehicle system concepts uses the Jupiter design, and somehow they can show that it is one of the lowest-cost solutions. We’ll see.

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ January 13th, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    What people fail to understand is that the best launch system is by definition the one that generates sufficient political support in order to fund it.

    That’s only true for government-run launcher systems.

    The commercial world, while not completely free of non-market driven decisions, is definitely more removed from Congressional purview.

    And really Stephen, you can’t possibly be recommending pork barrel politics as the best way to choose the best launch system, can you? Doesn’t that ignore the best value for the American Taxpayer?

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ NASA Fan,

    In essence, what Mr. Oler is saying is that NASA, at least in its HSF arm, doesn’t have a future. Oh, a small segment that will be responsible for leasing commercial crew flights to the ISS and training US crews for the station will endure, but that will be it. In his vision of the future, there will be no large government HSF organisation – no rockets, no spacecraft and no human exploration program. Such BEO human exploration as happens will be the work of private visionaries who are able to generate finance (much as the explorers of the 19th Century did) and leverage commercial crewed spaceflight technologies.

  • NASA Fan

    @Ben Russell-Gough

    Indeed, I agree with Mr. Oler. The end of NASA HSF as we know it is upon us. And while there are HSF commercial entities in various stages of success and operations, take away the ISS, you are left with space tourism.

    I suppose Bolden’s strategy here is to ‘dither’ away some time arguing with Congress, perhaps wasting a few hundred million in the process, while Space X and Orbital ramp up, Shuttle ends, and the issue of ‘jobs for my district’ is mute, as there aren’t any to save. Then Congress can back off and save some face.

    I guess.

    If HSF is really to be a free enterprise driven activity I’d let the ISS sink in the ocean, and see what free enterprise does w/o a government tenant.

  • I suppose Bolden’s strategy here is to ‘dither’ away some time arguing with Congress, perhaps wasting a few hundred million in the process,

    If only. The strategy seems to be to waste another few billion, and a few more years in the process. But it saves or creates jobs, so that’s OK.

  • Fred Willett

    Personally I’d keep the ISS to encourage commercial to get started.
    Once they get started you can rely on Free Enterprise to keep things going.

    The point of all this is that NASA has failed. Shuttle is going away and the only option on the table is commercial. NASA, with an annual budget of $19B can’t get its act together well enough to churn out a design for a rocket it can actually afford to build. On a schedule it can actually afford to pay for.
    Commercial wins by default.

  • Coastal Ron: “I take that as confirmation that they really do want the 130T launcher, and not the 70T version, regardless the initial direction the authorization act says.”

    No, what you are seeing is a conflict within Congress between those that want a to begin with a true STS derived 70 T launcher and those that want the 130mT Ares-5; or as I like to call them the realists and delusional members/staff of Congress respectively.

    Regardless, NASA has sent a clear message to the delusional members/staff of Congress that they can’t develop the 130 mT Ares-5 by 2016 for the money they have been allocated.

    So this gives the upper hand to the realists confirming their wisdom that we should start with a more modest STS derived 70 T launcher with serial development of the core followed by the new upperstage/engine if needed. The Jupiter-130 is also evolvable to the Jupiter-252 (ie Ares-5 Classic).

    Again as I have said many times there is a very really possibility (actually a hope of mine and others) that technology advancement may enable the 10m diameter payload and 70 T lift capability of the entry level Jupiter-130 to be more than good enough for decades to come if for no other reason than simply being able to afford the new breakthrough mission now possible.

    Now if the delusion members/staff of Congress get there way and we foolishly (once again mind you) start down the Ares-5 development path it will die about three years from now due to its inability to fit through the narrow time window we have for the burn rate Congress has assigned to the SLS.

    Now a smart company (i.e. one interested in making a lot of money quickly) would seize this opportunity to sign up to producing the Jupiter-130 and agree to split the savings with the government for every dollar they under run the overall budget assigned to the SLS. Other incentives could be provided for schedule and fixed operational cost savings as well. A key contract provision though will be to get NASA out of our way. This did wonders for what SpaceX was able to achieve.

    Everyone gets so focused on this or that hardware, but in the end success and failure always derives from the individuals and culture that brings that hardware to life. We just happen to have bunch of proven hardware and bunch of experienced workers standing by to make it so, but not for long.

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ January 14th, 2011 at 11:00 am

    No, what you are seeing is a conflict within Congress between those that want a to begin with a true STS derived 70 T launcher and those that want the 130mT Ares-5

    I don’t see the direct evidence of that, and if anything the ones talking are clearly in the 130T camp, so not much of a conflict.

    Now a smart company (i.e. one interested in making a lot of money quickly) would seize this opportunity to sign up to producing the Jupiter-130

    I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the 13 proposals came back with a DIRECT copy, but they are going to have a hard time making it the most cost-effective solution, even using government facilities. There is a reason why the Shuttle program cost $200M/month, and only part of that was for the orbiter.

    A key contract provision though will be to get NASA out of our way. This did wonders for what SpaceX was able to achieve.

    SpaceX is a commercial company that took on government work. What you’re describing is kind of the opposite, which will have a hard time surviving in the commercial marketplace.

    We just happen to have bunch of proven hardware and bunch of experienced workers standing by to make it so, but not for long.

    You’re ignoring the rest of the aerospace industry with this statement. ULA is not going away, nor is Lockheed, Boeing, ATK, Orbital, Pratt & Whitney or the vast second tier suppliers. The only real capability we might be losing is the ability to cast 12ft diameter SRM’s, but otherwise the general skill sets needed to design, build and launch rockets is alive and well after Shuttle goes away.

  • Matt Colver

    I think the current Delta IV heavy can launch around 25T to
    LEO. If they added two more boosters and developed a more powerful
    Upper Stage with two engines maybe that would be good enough for
    most missions. The new vehicle would have 5 CBC’s (Common Booster
    Core). The new two engine upper stage would also provide redunancy.
    Just layman’s thinking but that might get them around 50-60T to
    LEO. It would require launch pad mods, but the boosters would be
    the same as in production now. The upper stage would just be a mod
    of the existing design. Everything could be built in existing
    facilities near NASA’s Marshall facility at the ULA Decatur,
    Alabama plant. To me a Delta IV derived vehicle would be the
    faster, cheaper, way to go for a NASA Heavy lift vehicle.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Colver wrote @ January 15th, 2011 at 11:08 am

    ULA already has their launcher evolution mapped out, and you can see that they are thinking somewhat along those lines:

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf

  • John

    You need a booster that will handle both crew and HLV ( 40-125 mt ) requirements by 2016 and come in under budget. There’s only one solution.

Leave a Reply to rich kolker 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>