Congress, NASA

Florida’s senators speak about NASA

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) is one of NASA’s biggest advocates in Congress, and has a long track record on space policy. It’s not a surprise, then, that his office released Wednesday a six-minute video (below) of Nelson talking about space exploration, timed to the 25th anniversary of the Challenger accident this week. Most of the video is devoted to generalities about the history and importance of human spaceflight. About four and a half minutes, in though, he talks about the NASA authorization act, which calls for the development “of a new big rocket to replace the space shuttle”, as he described the Space Launch System.

Then he reiterated some tough language from earlier this month after NASA reported it could not currently determine how to develop the vehicle within the cost and schedule constraints of the act. “NASA must stop making excuses and follow this law,” he says. “I believe that the best and brightest at the space agency can build upon the nine billion dollars that we’ve already invested in the advanced technology to design this new rocket, and I think that these pioneers at NASA can also take a stepping-stone, pay-as-you-go approach.

By contrast, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), in office only since this month, has virtually no track record when it comes to space policy. In a meeting with reporters yesterday, Rubio said that he considered funding for NASA a priority even with the need to cut spending overall. “Anything you invest in NASA is money that you are using that has the byproduct effect of creating spinoff opportunities in the private sector,” he said, as reported by Florida Today. Launching rockets, he added, is “something we do because it’s important from a military capability, from a national-security capability, and also a commercial and economic capability.” (Much of that capability, though, has little to do with NASA.)

Central Florida News 13, meanwhile, recalled comments Rubio made last fall when running for the Senate, echoing Wednesday’s comments. “Space exploration is not something we do for fun,” he said in the October interview. “It’s something this country does because it has commercial applications, it has technical applications that help us in other fields. It has military and national defense applications.” He also, at the time, pointed to China’s space activities. “Look, China has invested heavily in getting to the moon, it’s not because they want to go up there and collect rock samples. It’s because the believe space is the high ground of national defense, and they want to have space superiority over the United States.”

147 comments to Florida’s senators speak about NASA

  • Anne Spudis

    Sen. Bill Nelson: …and I think that these pioneers at NASA can also take a stepping-stone, pay-as-you-go approach.

    A good option: Mission and Implementation of an Affordable Lunar Return (December 2010)

  • Robert G. Oler

    It doesnt matter these are all lines for the home team. Events, both economic and political are sweeping past more or even sustained funding for NASA.

    But here is sad statement “I believe that the best and brightest at the space agency can build upon the nine billion dollars that we’ve already invested in the advanced technology to design this new rocket, ” the problem is that they cannot.

    Most if not all of the money has been spent pursuing dead end vehicles which are essentially unaffordable and have no mission. You go over to NASAspaceflight.com and even the DIRECT devotees are starting to figure it out.

    The reality is for 9 billion dollars invested in a “new rocket”.

    We should have already had one by now

    And then there is Goofy Rubio

    “It’s because the believe space is the high ground of national defense, and they want to have space superiority over the United States.”

    on whittington’s blog he has a long diatribe about how the Moon is the “Gibralter of space”…when what he doesnt really or cant comprehend..is that Gibralters are useless in a world where cruise missiles can destroy them and aircraft carriers can range hundreds of miles.

    Goofy old world thinking On par with the French and the Maginot line

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    “It’s not a surprise, then, that his office released Wednesday a six-minute video (below) of Nelson talking about space exploration, timed to the 25th anniversary of the Challenger accident this week.”

    So much for Senator Nelson’s ‘Sputnik moment.’ It’d be ‘nice’ if the senator– a one time ‘mission specialist’ who survived a trip up, around and down on the taxpayer’s dime, would have noted the loss of the Apollo 1 crew, Grissom, White and Chaffee, 44 years ago today, January 27, 1967. Their loss– another ‘Sputnik moment’ of real consequence– ultimately made his trip possible decades later.

  • Jeff Foust

    It’d be ‘nice’ if the senator– a one time ‘mission specialist’ who survived a trip up, around and down on the taxpayer’s dime, would have noted the loss of the Apollo 1 crew, Grissom, White and Chaffee, 44 years ago today, January 27, 1967.

    Sen. Nelson does note the Apollo 1 and Columbia accidents in his speech (as well as Challenger), in particular in the conclusion of the speech.

  • amightywind

    Nelson is wise to come down on the right side of this issue. He is acting rationally to save his political career, after his disastrous support of Obamacare. The congress simply cannot tolerate being stonewalled by Obama’s nabobs at NASA. We need ‘big rockets’. The proposed ‘Ares 4.5′ is a good start.

  • NASA Fan

    Sen Nelson doesn’t know what he is talking about, and just goes to show how the political class, just because they can write a law on a piece of paper, think they are smarter and better and more powerful then the rest of us.

  • DocM

    What they really need to authorize is a new COTS, not to continue the brain dead paths of the last 2 decades. Let the innovators innovate a solutikn rather than having Congress design it.

  • Aremis Asling

    Ugh, again with the ‘Moon is a high ground for national defense’ argument. Until we have citizens and critical assets actually sitting on other solar system objects, space’s use as a defense necessity stops at Geostationary orbit. So-called advocates such as Rubio do us a disservice by raising that as any justification.

    Apollo was not a defense issue, it was a practice in nationalist equipment measuring. The day Armstron and Aldrin landed we proved we had some serious technical teeth, but aside from a general ‘look at the shiny thing we can do’ success of it, we didn’t actually gain any practical defense ground.

  • Coastal Ron

    Senator Nelson said “…I think that these pioneers at NASA can also take a stepping-stone, pay-as-you-go approach.

    OK, nice words, but that is not what the NASA Authorization Act says, which he voted for. The law allocates a specific amount of money to NASA to build the SLS and MPCV by a specific date. That’s not pay-as-you-go.

  • NASA Fan

    Nelson : “Pay as you go:”

    Wasn’t that the mantra of the VSE/Constellation? We’ll make progress based on budget, and let the schedule float. So how’d that turn out?

    Politicians. Ugh.

  • Anne Spudis

    NASA Fan wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 12:03 pm Nelson : “Pay as you go:”

    Wasn’t that the mantra of the VSE/Constellation? We’ll make progress based on budget, and let the schedule float. So how’d that turn out?

    ——-

    There was no VSE mantra.

    The agency never acquainted itself with the VSE and how it hinged on our return to the Moon:

    “Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth’s gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.

    With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond.”

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404

    Instead Mike christened the program Constellation, proceeded to build his rocket for Mars and the rest of the story is the mess we’re now in.

  • common sense

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 8:01 am

    “But here is sad statement “I believe that the best and brightest at the space agency can build upon the nine billion dollars that we’ve already invested in the advanced technology to design this new rocket, ” the problem is that they cannot.”

    It is not that they “cannot”. The problem is that they “cannot” in their current environment, political in particular. Congress keeps messing with NASA when Congress design (!) an HLV. An HLV that NASA says it cannot build on Congress’ terms. Congress is THE problem. Not NASA, not really. You have to have work in a similar environment to understand why. Politics is paramount, then budget, then everything else. The actual engineering soundness is number 25th on the list. And if you go against by raising your voice you usually end up doing something else. Congress is plain stupid as demonstrated by Nelson and Shelby, not to speak about the newbies – these clowns know even less, they don’t even seem to understand the difference between DoD and NASA. So no matter how brilliant you are you need an environment where you can express your brilliance. If you say the Ares-I will not work and here is a better design and you are re-assigned then what? Just an example.

    “Goofy old world thinking On par with the French and the Maginot line”

    Even worse than Maginot! At least there was real world tension and the enemies were miles apart, miles! Now one could argue about a limited wall to keep the german troops away… Well morons are worldwide… The Moon, Rubio?! Give us all a break! When they don’t know what they are talking about all those idiots, Rubio included, have to do is to speak of defense and threats then every one listens. Could it be there actually are Transformers on the Moon?

  • common sense

    @ NASA Fan wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    “Wasn’t that the mantra of the VSE/Constellation? We’ll make progress based on budget, and let the schedule float. So how’d that turn out?”

    VSE was and O’Keefe’s spiral development was. Not Constellation.

  • amightywind

    Instead Mike christened the program Constellation, proceeded to build his rocket for Mars and the rest of the story is the mess we’re now in.

    What a crock. Ares I and V, Orion, EDS, and Altair were designed specifically for south polar lunar exploration mission, for the ‘lunar folks’, not for Mars. I’d love to see evidence of that. You can’t blame Mike Griffin for designing rockets and spacecraft to accomplish the mission using existing shuttle technology. But I can fault you lunar folks for not claiming paternity for Constellation now that the liberals have blown the program up.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ almightywind.

    Read Zubrin’s “The Case For Mars”. His rocket for human Martian exploration, a D-SDLV in-line was called ‘Ares’. Its performance was practically identical to the ESAS Ares-V. He even mentions Dr. Griffin as one of his supporters at NASA at the end of the book.

    What would become the CxP archetecture was re-jigged for the Moon because President Bush identified the Moon as the first destination. However, Ares-V’s origin in terms of many in NASA regarding it as a critical and overriding priority, was Zubrin’s specification for a shuttle-derived Mars rocket.

  • Dennis Berube

    The Altairs lander was being designed so that amodified form could land on Mars. Mars was in the Constellation plans!

  • common sense

    @ Dennis Berube wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    “The Altairs lander was being designed so that amodified form could land on Mars. Mars was in the Constellation plans!”

    Any reference to that?

  • NASA as pivotal to National Defense is how the budget argument needs to be fought out. That’s how NASA will get the most dollars if not necessarily the best plan.

    As a fiscally conservative Congress they might decide heavy left development would be more economical if left to private industry. Why not order a SpaceX – XX heavy lift instead? We’d have it sooner and cheaper.

  • common sense

    @ sftommy wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    “NASA as pivotal to National Defense is how the budget argument needs to be fought out. That’s how NASA will get the most dollars if not necessarily the best plan.”

    NASA is NOT pivotal to national defense, BY LAW.

    “As a fiscally conservative Congress they might decide heavy left development would be more economical if left to private industry. Why not order a SpaceX – XX heavy lift instead? We’d have it sooner and cheaper.”

    We’ll see but they are fiscally conservative in name so far. We’ll see.

  • Anne Spudis

    Two Views of The Vision [Excerpt] Marburger described a split between NASA and the White House during formulation of the Vision. NASA (led by former Administrator Sean O’Keefe, Chief Scientist John Grunsfeld and an internal study group within the agency) wanted a manned Mars mission (as it has for the last 50 years) while the White House (led by Marburger, his OSTP colleagues and some members of the National Security Council) called for a new direction and orientation of the space program. They favored a return to the Moon with the “mission” of radically changing the rules of spaceflight.

    This latter course involved learning how to use the material and energy resources of the Moon to produce life support consumables, electrical power and rocket fuel, thereby creating new spaceflight capabilities. The White House group was informed by an abundance of detailed studies done over the past decade that demonstrated how the resources of the Moon could be tapped and utilized. Given the unlikelihood of significant new money for NASA, they believed that some kind of “game-changer” was needed – a way to step beyond low Earth orbit by incorporating innovative ways of conducting space business. A sustainable path, if you will.

    Marburger’s biggest concern was that by inserting Mars as a goal (not by any means an “ultimate goal”) or even a date for lunar return, the path forward would become “burdened by deadlines and difficult budget issues.” He believed that a program composed of small, incremental steps would gradually but continuously expand human “reach” into space beyond low Earth orbit—with economy provided by a template of bootstrapping. The key was to use robotic missions as pathfinders to understand, access and acquire products derived from lunar and space resources.

    As these differing threads were woven into a policy statement, NASA viewed the VSE as the next “large space program” for the agency. NASA’s traditional template dominated public discussion of the Vision, where gaps, arbitrary time scales and the long-desired human Mars mission as the “ultimate goal” became familiar talking points – not surprising, considering that the agency had sole custody of the VSE after it was crafted. Lunar return by 2020 was not meant as a deadline, but it is widely interpreted as such. Although the VSE is careful to mention trips to “Mars and other destinations,” the latter part of that phrase seldom appears in NASA charts.

    The subsequent Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) is pure NASA. In classic agency fashion, “Apollo-on-steroids” (big giant booster, mega-capsule and gargantuan lander) was rolled out. The programmatic significance of Ares V in the architecture should not be overlooked – delivering 150 metric tones to LEO, it is a rocket designed for human Mars mission done in the Apollo-style, with everything needed for Mars dragged up from the deep gravity well of the Earth. It is overkill for almost any other space job, including missions to the Moon. Overkill can work, if you have the money (although it isn’t good practice even if you do have the money). But even with the most optimistic assumptions, the ESAS doesn’t fit into NASA’s current or projected budget.

    Marburger’s concern is exactly what has happened…. [End Excerpt]

  • Egad

    > Ugh, again with the ‘Moon is a high ground for national defense’ argument.

    Think positively: if the Moon is an important high ground for national defense, then Mars, more than a hundred times higher than the moon, must be at least a hundred times as important for defending our freedoms, keeping us safe, defeating the terrorists, and thwarting the Chicoms. And therefore vastly worth funding on an emergency basis.

    ;-) , if necessary.

  • Rubio is obviously ignorant of federal law. The National Aeronautics and Space Act specificially prohibits NASA from doing military research; it’s in the purview of the Defense Department.

    As for the suggestion that the Moon is some sort of military outpost, that’s truly laughable. Yeah, it really makes a lot of sense to build a missile base 240,000 miles away from your target so you can nuke the county that owes you trillions of dollars; the debt goes unpaid so your economy collapses and you also lose one of your biggest customers, not to mention that in the three days it takes for your missiles to hit their target your enemy will have wiped you out with a retaliatory response launched from a few thousand miles away.

    Elsewhere … This was at the top of the list of the latest Grant Opportunities Update from the Florida SpaceReport:

    U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

    The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission invites submission of proposals to provide a one-time unclassified report on the development of the national space program of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the potential impacts on future U.S. economic and national security. Proposal submissions are due Feb. 9. Visit:

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=2a54bf69f0fc9eee15c4f4b541212644

  • common sense

    @Anne Spudis wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    I am confused. Marburger’s “plan” is essentially what this WH has proposed with FY-11 so are you or not supporting it?

    Excerpt:

    Marburger’s biggest concern was that by inserting Mars as a goal (not by any means an “ultimate goal”) or even a date for lunar return, the path forward would become “burdened by deadlines and difficult budget issues.” He believed that a program composed of small, incremental steps would gradually but continuously expand human “reach” into space beyond low Earth orbit—with economy provided by a template of bootstrapping. The key was to use robotic missions as pathfinders to understand, access and acquire products derived from lunar and space resources.

  • Vladislaw

    Anne wrote:

    “The agency never acquainted itself with the VSE and how it hinged on our return to the Moon”

    Actually it hinged on affordable and sustainable commercial systems, NASA was not supposed to build any new launch vehicles and closing the gap was paramount to the entire program. It also called for a huge cut in workers at NASA involved in launch and operations. We are still waiting for this after 6 years. There was no Lunar anything until domestic access was achieved.

  • byeman

    What a crock., read the ESAS, “Ares I and V, Orion, EDS, …..were designed specifically for” a Mars mission.

  • Anne Spudis

    common sense wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Cut and paste and spin all you want but the new plan called “Flexible Path” is not the Vision. If it were, I would not repeatedly have to explain that the new plan has no objective, no goal, no plan to use lunar resources to build a sustainable, extensible, transportation system in Cislunar space by using resources found on the Moon.

  • common sense

    I am not sure why we keep talking about the VSE, Constellation, ESAS. These are all gone now. Let’s focus on the future. I see it as two major direction opportunities:

    1. SLS/Orion
    2. CCDev

    They just, I believe, became mutually exclusive. My crystal ball says 1 is the end of HSF at NASA for decades to come so what are we going to do now? And btw the way Congress may cut budget is to terminate SLS/Orion and not reassign their budget elsewhere inside NASA. It would be worth what $3-5B this year?

  • Anne Spudis

    Vladislaw wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    You must have been informed by something I never read or heard of.

  • Szebehely

    Humorous Oler, criticizing a senior Senator who has demonstrated his ability to stop a President cold in his tracks on an issue once only the purview of the White House. Do you know why Nelson faces challenges in his coming re-election? Because he didn’t go far enough for Floridians in opposing the President, in rolling-back all of the changes sought by the Administration. That’s the reason for his tough language to NASA about following the law, specifically the 2010 Authorization Act. And it’s why he will be one of the Administration’s worst nightmares in the Senate.

  • common sense

    @ Anne Spudis wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    “Cut and paste and spin all you want but the new plan called “Flexible Path” is not the Vision.”

    You know, I find your reaction puerile. I asked you a simple question. You actually provided the link. There is no plan called “flexible path” anywhere proposed. There was a FY11 proposed budget that addressed the VSE and Marburger’s concerns.

    “If it were, I would not repeatedly have to explain that the new plan has no objective, no goal, no plan to use lunar resources to build a sustainable, extensible, transportation system in Cislunar space by using resources found on the Moon.”

    I cannot believe what you write and at the same time understand your reasoning. There was a proposed budget to develop the necessary infrastructure to perform all your dreams. What was not here was a timeline and an immediate destination.

    What am I spinning? Any possibility to have a grown ups conversation with you?

    Again Marburger, emphasis mine, from YOUR link (say otherwise):

    Marburger’s biggest concern was that by inserting Mars as a goal (not by any means an “ultimate goal”) or even a date for lunar return, the path forward would become “burdened by deadlines and difficult budget issues.”

    He believed that a program composed of small, incremental steps would gradually but continuously expand human “reach” into space beyond low Earth orbit—with economy provided by a template of bootstrapping. The key was to use robotic missions as pathfinders to understand, access and acquire products derived from lunar and space resources.

  • “NASA is NOT pivotal to national defense, BY LAW.”

    That’s a nice ideal and one with a lot of lip service paid to it…
    but if space becomes militarily competitive, and it already is becoming so, then military opportunities will be exploited and DOD will be happy to meld NASA capability into DOD plans.

    Further, I’d bet it’s in the back of the mind of every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and an option every President would be irresponsible not to consider available if need be. I’d also suspect most senior members of Congress appreciate this.

  • common sense

    @ Vladislaw wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    “It also called for a huge cut in workers at NASA involved in launch and operations. We are still waiting for this after 6 years. ”

    Funny how this little fact is being ignored by all our leaders and Constellation supporters… See all those people believed they would transition from Shuttle to Constellation. But it was NOT the plan. The plan was to CUT as you said. There are smart ways to cut and not so smart ways. Now, we’ll never know. The cuts are going to be hard and hurtful AND there will be no Constellation. Great planning! Thanks Congress, thanks Griffin.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Szebehely wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    “Humorous Oler, criticizing a senior Senator who has demonstrated his ability to stop a President cold in his tracks on an issue once only the purview of the White House. Do you know why Nelson faces challenges in his coming re-election? Because he didn’t go far enough for Floridians in opposing the President, in rolling-back all of the changes sought by the Administration. ”

    what is humerious is the above paragraph.

    Nelson stopped nothing, Obama and Bolden’s plan is headed off full speed ahead…and Nelson is facing a challenge not because of space issues but because FLorida is a purple state and right now its more red then blue…

    The old space regime was dying of its own weight…and Nelson is just playing to the crowd.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @ sftommy wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    “That’s a nice ideal and one with a lot of lip service paid to it…”

    Ideal??? Did you ever read the Space Act? It is LAW.

    “but if space becomes militarily competitive, and it already is becoming so, then military opportunities will be exploited and DOD will be happy to meld NASA capability into DOD plans.”

    Militarily “competitive”? What does that mean?

    “Further, I’d bet it’s in the back of the mind of every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and an option every President would be irresponsible not to consider available if need be. I’d also suspect most senior members of Congress appreciate this.”

    You suspect wrong. OR they would change the LAW.

    Association of NASA with DoD is a major mistake. DoD does well without NASA and its politics and will keep doing well. Why would they need such a headache? When was the last classified Shuttle launched? Any idea? Any idea why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions

    This is not SF, Tommy.

  • Robert G. Oler

    sftommy wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    “That’s a nice ideal and one with a lot of lip service paid to it…
    but if space becomes militarily competitive, and it already is becoming so, then military opportunities will be exploited and DOD will be happy to meld NASA capability into DOD plans.”

    noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    only in the dreams of people like Paul Hill and MOD is anyone interested in any of NASA’s experience with HSF.

    the only thing the interaction between the DoD and NASA did during the shuttle era was cement a dislike of NASA by the DoD…they are mocked frequently as simply “incompetent”.

    go to a DoD safety course…the whipping child is NASA HSF

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Szebehely wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    “Humorous Oler, criticizing a senior Senator who has demonstrated his ability to stop a President cold in his tracks on an issue once only the purview of the White House.”

    Stop cold in his tracks???

    “Do you know why Nelson faces challenges in his coming re-election? Because he didn’t go far enough for Floridians in opposing the President, in rolling-back all of the changes sought by the Administration. That’s the reason for his tough language to NASA about following the law, specifically the 2010 Authorization Act.”

    Well so long Mr. Nelson then, it’s not like we will miss you. Can you take Mr. Shelby with you in your retirement?

    “And it’s why he will be one of the Administration’s worst nightmares in the Senate.”

    Wow. I thought that healthcare, defense (wars), social security, the economy (wall street), were this WH’s worst nightmares. But I forgot Sen. Nelson. True. Tough job Mr. President!

  • Anne Spudis

    common sense wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    I’m not going to be drawn into an argument with you “common sense.”

    The facts are out there.

    Educate yourself.

  • Szebehely wrote:

    Do you know why Nelson faces challenges in his coming re-election? Because he didn’t go far enough for Floridians in opposing the President, in rolling-back all of the changes sought by the Administration. That’s the reason for his tough language to NASA about following the law, specifically the 2010 Authorization Act. And it’s why he will be one of the Administration’s worst nightmares in the Senate.

    As a Merritt Island resident, I laugh myself silly at the bloated self-importance some of the space people have around here. NASA matters to no one other than north Brevard County, which is registered overwhelmingly Republican and would never vote as a majority for Obama or Nelson.

    For all the noise made last year by the unholy alliance between the space worker unions and the local GOP / Tea Partiers, in the end it made no difference at all. Constellation is dead and commercial space is the future.

  • sftommy wrote:

    That’s a nice ideal and one with a lot of lip service paid to it…
    but if space becomes militarily competitive, and it already is becoming so, then military opportunities will be exploited and DOD will be happy to meld NASA capability into DOD plans.

    Uh, DOD has no authority to “meld” another agency into theirs, especially a civilian agency separated from the military at birth by law. Only Congress can do that, and the President would have to sign the bill.

  • Robert G. Oler

    It will be entertaining and interesting to see if in the next 50 years there is a military role for humans in space as actual combatants.

    Surely at some point in that time period (although it isnt a given) there will be some sort of “engagement” in space but the odds are very good that it will be one uncrewed vehicle to another. The notion of space combat with humans (and thats what I am referring to here) starting much like it did in aviation seems a tad far fetched…As does the notion of battling over resources on the Moon.

    Ignore that no power on earth is really in a position to (despite the musings of Paul Spudis) spend money on lunar resources in a fashion that cannot be done cheaper from earth…assume some magic occurred and that event happened. Unless the Moon’s water is concentrated in one giant “lake” it seems unlikely that people at different bases on the edge of survivability as it is…would start finding it necessary to take potshots at each other…

    Likewise it is pretty unlikely that the DoD would need the help of NASA on anything. With X-37 the DoD is working its way toward reusability and military officers working for the DoD on a military mission would take risk far greater then those NASA people seem to take…ie you wold find military pilots who would volunteer to ride an Atlas or Delta or Falcon9 tomorrow. Even without an LAS.

    Events unfold and so what is possible or likely now and what would be so after 25 years of commercial spaceflight where the “bar” for space ops is routinely coming down instead of going up…there might be some notion.

    But the idea that we are going to put satellites on the Moon to replenish earth based constellations (Marcel) or Whittington’s embrace of Taylor D’s really strange notions of military space or the Moon as “Gibraltar”.

    are simply goofy

    Robert G. Oler

  • Scott Bass

    Perhaps they should change NASAs charter and roll it under dod, at least congress could write the blank checks needed, a flick of the pen can make something important to national security regardless of public opinion. there would probably be some cost savings to both during the restructure.

  • Any military capability this nation has will be used in a national crisis if it offers military advantage. If NASA has anything useful on the shelf or in orbit it will be used.

    That’s true in SF, DC and Arlington VA.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    “It will be entertaining and interesting to see if in the next 50 years there is a military role for humans in space as actual combatants.”

    Most likely not.

    “Surely at some point in that time period (although it isnt a given) there will be some sort of “engagement” in space but the odds are very good that it will be one uncrewed vehicle to another. The notion of space combat with humans (and thats what I am referring to here) starting much like it did in aviation seems a tad far fetched…As does the notion of battling over resources on the Moon.”

    Well if you take aviation for reference then we MUST follow the logic all the way. I am not disagreeing just saying. Today’s major programs for aviation in the US and over seas (except maybe China?) are directed towards combat UAVs (even Saddam had one right? ;) ). There is a longing for removing humans from combat. And a UAV is a lot cheaper than an aircraft with pilots onboard. They are even more maneuverable and possibly stealthier. One of the challenges resides in their integration with piloted aircraft but it won’t last long.

    “ie you wold find military pilots who would volunteer to ride an Atlas or Delta or Falcon9 tomorrow. Even without an LAS.”

    You would find a lot of people riding without a LAS from the nutcases to the most reasonable ones. Shuttle does not have a LAS and yet people flew it for 30 years. The LAS came out of the Astronaut Office with good intentions but that’s about it. It may or not work, not clear.

  • amightywind

    Dennis wrote:

    The Altairs lander was being designed so that amodified form could land on Mars. Mars was in the Constellation plans!

    How ridiculous! The Altair lander can’t carry enough fuel by a factor of 100 to land and relaunch back to Mars orbit, or remain viable for 2 years… It is also not designed to reenter an atmosphere.

  • Bennett

    Scott Bass wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    Scott, even though it will never happen, as explained in several comments above, it would be fantastic for the entertainment value!

    Imagine those career managers being put under military rules and military expectations for performance… I’d lay odds that 90%+ would retire, quit, or go AWOL within 10 days of the management change.

    DOD doesn’t need anything NASA has. They already have places we know of like Skunk Works, probably a few we don’t know about, and can afford to build anything they feel they need.

    Why would they want NASA (the organization) when they can hire all of the bright engineers they need without the headache?

  • Coastal Ron

    Anne Spudis wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Cut and paste and spin all you want but the new plan called “Flexible Path” is not the Vision. If it were, I would not repeatedly have to explain that the new plan has no objective, no goal, no plan to use lunar resources to build a sustainable, extensible, transportation system in Cislunar space by using resources found on the Moon.

    A couple of things:

    1. The Moon is not the vision either. The VSE states as one of it’s four goals (the others being more technology related):

    Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations.

    The Moon is but a preparation area for the ultimate goals across the solar system.

    2. Since the VSE goals are “Mars and other destinations”, I didn’t see dates set in stone for them by Bush/Griffin, so it would appear under your definition that the VSE has ever had an objective, goal, or plan.

    Unless your definition is wrong, and the building of capabilities (the other three major goals in the VSE) are as important. I know you tend to ignore those little details, but it’s what will make your taxpayer-funded lunar fantasies affordable.

    3. You and your hubby have always promulgated a Moon-centric view of where NASA should be going, even though it’s not supported by the VSE.

    For instance, in the VSE section for “The Moon” it states the following:

    Undertake lunar exploration activities to enable sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars and more distant destinations in the solar system

    and

    Use lunar exploration activities to further science, and to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and systems, including use of lunar and other space resources, to support sustained human space exploration to Mars and other destinations.

    It doesn’t talk about using “ lunar resources to build a sustainable, extensible, transportation system in Cislunar space by using resources found on the Moon.” You are making that part up. Maybe it will happen that way, but that is not what your precious VSE says, so stop misquoting it.

    In this case, you are the one doing the spinning…

  • sftommy wrote:

    Any military capability this nation has will be used in a national crisis if it offers military advantage. If NASA has anything useful on the shelf or in orbit it will be used.

    NASA has nothing the military can use. As I and others have tried to hammer into your head over and over, NASA does civilian research. The military has its own space research divisions; Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, for example, is the 45th Space Wing. CCAFS routinely launches military satellites and other payloads of military interest. The Pentagon couldn’t care less about a 35-year old Space Shuttle Main Engine or a Mars Rover.

    If you would read your history, NASA was created in 1958 specifically to split away the civilian space research from the military research. The main reason Sputnik launched before Vanguard is that the White House didn’t want a civilian space program getting in the way of a military space program, back in the days when NASA didn’t exist. Vanguard had to wait until a pad and launch time were available at CCAFS. NASA was created specifically to let them go their separate ways so civilian space would not impede on military space.

    What you’re suggesting is that we repeat the mistake that led to the “Sputnik moment,” to utter the currently popular phrase.

  • Perhaps they should change NASAs charter and roll it under dod, at least congress could write the blank checks needed

    No one, including DoD, is going to get a “blank check” in the coming fiscal storm.

    a flick of the pen can make something important to national security regardless of public opinion.

    Have you been smoking the same rotweed that “DCSCA” has been? Making NASA part of DoD makes no sense whatsoever, and it would require a law of Congress, not a “flick of the pen.”

  • Vladislaw

    Anne Spudis wrote:

    “Vladislaw wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    You must have been informed by something I never read or heard of.”

    From the letter from O’Keefe at the forward:

    “With last year’s budget, NASA released a new Strategic Plan outlining a new approach to space exploration using a “building block” strategy to explore scientifically valuable destinations across our solar system.

    You hold in your hands a new, bolder framework for exploring our solar system that builds upon the policy that was announced by the President after months of careful deliberations within the Administration.

    will put in place revolutionary technologies and capabilities for the future,

    Our aim is to explore in a sustainable, affordable, and flexible manner.

    I cannot overstate how much NASA will change in the coming years as this plan is implemented”

    —————————————————–
    The Vision then follows with this:

    Goal and Objectives
    The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:

    • Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;

    • Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;

    • Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and

    • Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.”
    —————————————————————

    So the goals are sustainable and affordable, promote commercial, develop innovative technologies and infrastructures and goto the moon my 2020. But it is clear hitting the moon came AFTER domestic cargo and crew and a whole lot of tech development and if hvl is needed at all it wont be until the end of the decade and commercial was being pushed.

    The VSE continues with what NASA is supposed to develop and what they are to aquire from the commercial sector:

    C. Space Transportation Capabilities Supporting Exploration

    • Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit;

    « Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable to support missions to and from the International Space Station; and

    « Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.”

    Not a crew vehicle for transporting from Earth to LEO but for missions beyond earth orbit. Sure sounds space based to me.

    From page 2:

    For Sustainable Exploration

    “It seeks to establish a sustainable and flexible approach to exploration by pursuing compelling questions, developing breakthrough technologies”

    From page 15

    “NASA will rely on existing or new commercial cargo transport systems, as well as international partner cargo transport systems. NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities”

    It goes on if it does need heavy lift it can aquire it from the commercial sector.

    Also on page 15: (boldface mine)

    “In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles. These technologies will be demonstrated on the ground, at the Space Station and other locations in Earth orbit, and on the Moon starting this decade and into the next. Other breakthrough technologies, such as nuclear power and propulsion, optical communications, and potential use of space resources, will be demonstrated as part of robotic exploration missions. The challenges of designing these systems will accelerate the development of fundamental technologies that are critical not only to NASA, but also to the Nation’s economic and national security.”

    From page 17

    “As we move outward into the solar system, NASA will rely more heavily on private sector space capabilities to support activities in Earth orbit and future exploration activities. In particular, NASA will seek to use existing or new commercial launch vehicles for cargo transport to the Space Station, and potentially to the Moon and other destinations.

    Sounds pretty commercial to me and it called for small ground crews and “Congress is reviewing human capital legislation that will provide NASA with necessary workforce tools. ”

    That was the review that called for all the cuts in labor force that some porkers in congress did not want.

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “It doesn’t talk about using “ lunar resources to build a sustainable, extensible, transportation system in Cislunar space by using resources found on the Moon.” You are making that part up. Maybe it will happen that way, but that is not what your precious VSE says, so stop misquoting it.

    In this case, you are the one doing the spinning…”

    Excellent point Ron, it specifically says pre positioned fuel depots although it does not specifically say if they are commercial or commercially refueled, but from the language I would say it would be commercial with NASA running a test bed first.

    “Flexible” is littered thoughout the VSE and other documents in the late 2004 early 2005 period prior to Griffin coming in, to say that President Obama is going off the reservation by RETURNING to the flexible paths, as laid out in the VSE, is just plain silly.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    “are directed towards combat UAVs (even Saddam had one right? ;) )”

    yes he did, they were balsa wood so our radar wouldnt pick them up and they would be catapulted off of tankers sailing down the east coast…and ravage our cities. What was it Arbusto said “Dangers gather near our shores”…

    Well the notion of “people combat” while high in “ground taking” is less in terms of power projection and I tried in my post to indicate how unlikely I thought it was in terms of humans and spaceflight.

    I do see military efforts by people in space, but they are in my view going to be mainly associated with doing things like building and servicing military platforms. Who knows what happens in the future, long term…in 1904 one couldnt predict that Corrigedor would be important…

    but to claim that space is the “high ground” is simply a slogan from a bygone era.

    Military pilots would ride a Delta or Falcon or Atlas not out of disregard for the risk, but acceptance of them..in regard for the mission.

    Robert G. Oler.

  • Vladislaw

    “but to claim that space is the “high ground” is simply a slogan from a bygone era.”

    We will simply go onto Mars and capture “higher” ground, but if we stay in the plane of the ecliptic are we really capturing higher ground? Wouldn’t the true high ground be to fly perpendicular to the plane and get the REAL high ground in the solar system?

  • Scott Bass

    Bennett, although the DOD may not need NASA, NASA would benefit falling under that defense spending umbrella , I realize Gates has cancelled some programs and that others are on the chopping block but it seems mostly because he chose to. Generally speaking, if NASA was a division of DOD right now, they would get all of the 2011 funding passed.

  • Joe

    common sense wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
    “Anne Spudis wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    “Cut and paste and spin all you want but the new plan called “Flexible Path” is not the Vision.”

    You know, I find your reaction puerile. I asked you a simple question. You actually provided the link. There is no plan called “flexible path” anywhere proposed.”

    See Anne, you are wrong (in spite of the detail in the link you provided) because the specific phrase “flexible path” was never used.

    I “feel your pain”, but these guys deal only in sophsitry and the attempt to bore you into submmission.

  • Michael Kent

    Dennis Berube wrote:

    The Altairs lander was being designed so that amodified form could land on Mars. Mars was in the Constellation plans!

    The Altair lander wasn’t being designed at all. Work on it had ceased to free up funds for Ares I, Orion, and Ares V. Work wasn’t going to start up again until the Ares V was operational in 2028.

    Scott Bass wrote:

    although the DOD may not need NASA, NASA would benefit falling under that defense spending umbrella

    The DoD is not a welfare agency. It funds projects that it determines to be vital to the war effort or to future war efforts. NASA falls into neither category.

    Mike

  • Coastal Ron

    Joe wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I “feel your pain”, but these guys deal only in sophsitry and the attempt to bore you into submmission.

    If the facts are boring, so be it. I’d rather have accuracy than excitement.

    One of the issues that Ann Spudis has is that she keeps trying to reinterpret the VSE, so actually posting the text from the VSE easily proves her wrong. If you want to call that sophistry, then you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Sounds pretty commercial to me…

    Great post.

    It’s funny how the more Moon First supporters try to reinterpret the VSE, the more people like us post what the VSE actually says, which easily refutes them.

    I guess we should thank them for inspiring us all to become more acquainted with the VSE, but I doubt they’d appreciate it – they just want us to pay the bills, not ask questions… ;-)

  • Aberwys

    So, who needs NASA?
    Let’s look at the departments under the exec. branch and see:
    Agriculture-No
    Commerce-Maybe NOAA
    Defense-No, we seem to have concluded that one here
    Education-No
    Energy-No. They’ve got enough academics involved to keep the innovation fires burning for quite a long time.
    HHS, Homeland Security, HUD-Nope.
    Interior-No. They like their Salmon smoked too.
    Justice, Labor, State-Nope
    Transportation-FAA, but not really need…they need CCDev more
    Treasury-Ha ha
    VA-Nope

    So, tell me, who needs NASA? People who currently have jobs need NASA. Who else?

    Rather than take stabs in the dark about what is to come, I’d like to hear what people have to say about how we can define our future:
    -What does NASA really do that the US needs?
    -What SHOULD we be doing that the US needs?

    IMHO, we should be the radical disruptive technology agency–the ones who help to “Win the Future”

    Now, if only the system within NASA rewarded innovation vs. beat down the innovators…that would be the very cultural change needed to make the agency vibrant (vs. awarding innovation funds to those folks in the usual cliques…so boring and uncreative…makes me want to leave!).

    Politics aside, before we can go anywhere in the future, there are internal issues that need to be solved to make us viable. Innovators should be valued, not punished, otherwise, NASA becomes a 50 year old metaphor.

    Sputniks ahoy!

  • Bennett

    Rand wrote “Have you been smoking the same rotweed that “DCSCA” has been?”

    Semi-audible chuckle at that line, thanks man.

  • Bennett

    Generally speaking, if NASA was a division of DOD right now, they would get all of the 2011 funding passed.

    Scott, if the DoD thought that starting a moon colony was critical to national defense, we would already have a moon colony.

    The task of a defense department is not “exploration”, it’s war and defense. What NASA has managed to do since 1960 is not what the defense department does for a living.

    You and I may think that the lunar missions and Hubble and the robotic missions to the outer planets are really great stuff, and they are! But they’re simply not the job of the DoD and they don’t belong in that branch of government.

  • DCSCA

    Jeff Foust wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 8:30 am
    Noted- DCSCA stands corrected. At least somebody recalled it.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
    “It will be entertaining and interesting to see if in the next 50 years there is a military role for humans in space as actual combatants.” A Soviet spacecraft was armed with a ‘space gun’ at one time. However,
    ‘entertaining’ and ‘interesting’ are hardly rational terms one would use to describe space combat– unless you’re Mr. Spock. Disasterous, and idiotic are more apt.

    “Surely at some point in that time period (although it isnt a given) there will be some sort of “engagement” in space but the odds are very good that it will be one uncrewed vehicle to another.”

    Don’t see a space-faring nation generating that kind of self-inflicted wound on a larger scale. An on-orbit conflict would produce an orbiting debris field– a shell of wreckage quite literally lethal to craft and crews for decades.

  • common sense

    @ Joe wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    “I “feel your pain”, but these guys deal only in sophsitry and the attempt to bore you into submmission.”

    So, Joe, since you once alluded to the fact you’ve been in this business for some time. How do you see the future? What do you think the chances are to build an HLV with the new Congress? What do you think the budget will be? Do you think we can get $88B to build a lunar base with infrastructure to boot? How about Orion?

    Without sophistry of course. Since it seems to you basic understanding of words is equal to sophistry try with facts no ambiguous words. Go ahead in your own language. Forget VSE, Constellation. Please, show us that you can do better than smart cracks and basic criticism of people who actually are trying to propose an alternative to oblivion.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    “What was it Arbusto said “Dangers gather near our shores”…”

    Yeah well maybe we ought to be concerned of dangers that gather within our shores.

    “but to claim that space is the “high ground” is simply a slogan from a bygone era.”

    It is a slogan in any era and it was such already back in the 50s and 60s. It made more sense back then. The Kennedys just came up with a new language to take care of the then soviets. It is the legacy to their language that provided the end of the Cold War. The way they dealt with the enemy. Had they listened to the old guard back then during the cuban crisis there would be nothing to talk about today.

    “Military pilots would ride a Delta or Falcon or Atlas not out of disregard for the risk, but acceptance of them..in regard for the mission.”

    Understood but this is not limited to military pilots. Other people can willingly accept risks for a dangerous mission. Pick any civilian astronaut for example.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Scott Bass wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Bennett, although the DOD may not need NASA, NASA would benefit falling under that defense spending umbrella …

    the flaw in that assumption is thinking that NASA would move into DOD literally “as it is” and that DOD would not change NASA.

    Ie you assume that the DoD has some interest in going to Mars, the Moon or other places..

    They dont.

    It doesnt matter of course this isnt going to happen…but…

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    If you’re going to pass yourself off as an ‘educator’ you best bone up on some history, particularly the origins of American missile program development as well as the politics surrounding decisions over militarization versus civilian space projects in the era when NASA was created. Today, post Cold War, it makes perfect sense to tuck NASA under the wing of the DoD, as the Age of Austerity takes hold. But then, shills and advocates for commercial space would naturally oppose it.

  • Anne Spudis

    Joe wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Thank you Joe (for the smiley faces re “Q” too).

    My efforts of quoting and posting the occasional link are done in the hope that readers will learn and understand the history as well as the way out of this impasse.

  • Congress never should have been so specific about what they wanted, and Senator Nelson in particular should have known better.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure he means well, but rocket design is best left up to the rocket scientists, as it were – not politicians, or even payload specialists.

    Personally, I’d like to see something like a man-rated HL-X1 (a core-only Ares V) ready to launch crew by 2016 (and a cargo variant with SRBs ready by 2018). According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations*, it would be able to lift about 36 [short] tons to LEO, far more than the Shuttle or Ares I. And, unlike the vehicle described in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and the accompanying Senate report, it would actually be possible within the allotted budget.

    Further, the severe time and short-term budget constraints have seemingly directly resulted in changes that will end up costing a lot in the long run.

    Specifically, I’m very concerned by the decision, mentioned in the preliminary Section 309 report, to use SSMEs rather than RS-68Bs. An expensive, reusable engine on a disposable rocket? How much money will be wasted in the long run, and how many missions will risk cancellation due to the higher per-launch cost?

    The switch from a 10m to 8.4m core diameter worries me, however, I don’t know enough about the initial reasoning behind switching [back] to 10m in the first place to comment on it directly.

    * which largely involve comparing 6 RS-68A engines to the 3 F-1 engines in one of the proposed Saturn INT-20 designs, said to be capable of lifting 39 tons to LEO…

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    “Don’t see a space-faring nation generating that kind of self-inflicted wound on a larger scale. An on-orbit conflict would produce an orbiting debris field– a shell of wreckage quite literally lethal to craft and crews for decades.”

    only if one thinks about it with the same thought that the right wingers put into Iraq. On the other hand if you think about it in sort of a modern outside the box method…things are very different…

    You obviously dont understand modern space warfare. The trick in modern space warfare is two fold.

    The first is to make “loss of service” appear accidental…or to make the data that you have coming down either corrupted or not reliable.

    THESE ARE MY OWN PRIVATE MUSINGS and do not reflect any work for any employer but…

    I actually think that the Chinese are up to pracitcing a little of this. It would not be hard to leave something in the GEO belt that looks like its a derelict…spent rocket body stage or whatever and IT NOT BE. .

    The GEO belt is monitored but not everything is monitored real time and the dwell times are not long…so you put something in a near geo orbit and when it is not near your opponents good monitoring assets the vehicle does some manuevering and then goes “stealth” (from an optical mode) and closes on an opponents GEO asset and doesnt “hit it” but bumps it rather well and does some remarkable damage.

    The chinese have been practicing what appears to be such maneuvers and such “low rate” bumps with their own satellites. It wouldnt take much…plume impingement etc.

    then one loses the asset.

    There are other ways to practice “space war” that are with machines but are not shrapnel makers…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 3:51 am

    what would be the point of such a vehicle? Its cost to fly would be enormous and its payload can be carried on other launch vehicles…with modest modifications.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 1:48 am

    “@Rand SimToday, post Cold War, it makes perfect sense to tuck NASA under the wing of the DoD, ”

    Rand is correct of course it is not going to happen…but you realize that if it did the DoD would end all notions of NASA going to the Moon etc…

    the DoD wont spend money on that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    For all the people who want NASA as part of the DoD…Palin is your girl.

    This is Sister Sarah confusing the space race with the arms race.

    Did you know the Soviets won the space race?

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101260055

    ““That was another one of those WTF moments that when he has so often repeated the Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. He needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space. Yeah, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time, that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union, so I listen to that Sputnik talk over and over again, and I think we don’t need one of those.”

    so Mark Whittington…is this who you are supporting for President?

    LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Kent, Altair was dropped that is true, but if you go to the NASA page, maybe some of the old material where talk of modifying an Altair lander for a Mars mission may still be there. They were talking of adding heat shielding etc. So I was not making it up. Mars was in the Constellation plan, and for that reason I could not understand Mr. Obama cancelling the program.

  • Joe

    Coastal Ron wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
    “If the facts are boring, so be it. I’d rather have accuracy than excitement.”

    You quote many “data points’ (incessantly), they are not necessarily facts. You dismiss (with handwaving) other information that does not suit your preconceived views. Have fun.

  • Joe

    common sense wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
    @ Joe wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    “I “feel your pain”, but these guys deal only in sophsitry and the attempt to bore you into submmission.”

    Thanks for going on to prove my point. You can alsways tell when a “would be” internet bully is getting frustratued, they get really angry.

  • Allen Thomson

    > The GEO belt is monitored but not everything is monitored real time and the dwell times are not long…so you put something in a near geo orbit and when it is not near your opponents good monitoring assets the vehicle does some manuevering and then goes “stealth” (from an optical mode) and closes on an opponents GEO asset…

    Speaking of that,

    http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2011/0226.html

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    This is Sister Sarah confusing the space race with the arms race.

    Did you know the Soviets won the space race?

    Palin is an ignorant person pandering to ignorant people.

  • But then, shills and advocates for commercial space would naturally oppose it.

    I’m not “opposing” it. I’m simply pointing out that it’s lunacy, and not going to happen.

  • Jim Oberg says that Palin was right:

    “I’m seeing up close how ‘Palin Derangement Syndrome’ can compel otherwise intelligent people to foam at the mouth and babble nonsense to prove they’re right and she’s wrong. The historical view is that the early Soviet victories in the Space Race led to the US response of the Apollo program, whose triumph validated the superiority of US space technology — which had profound diplomatic, military, commercial, and cultural consequences. When Reagan challenged the USSR with Strategic Defense in the 1980s, Apollo had given that challenge credibility — and the same pundits in the West and in Russian who pooh-poohed SDI had also pooh-poohed the odds of Apollo working. Proven wrong once, they lost credibility when Gorbachyov had to decide when/.if to pull the plug on the USSR’s own hideously expensive space weapons programs (eg, Polyus-Skif and Buran). Soviet leadership came to believe, rightly or wrongly, that SDI was a lethal threat to them, based on the success of Apollo that had only been made possible by the stinging US defeats in the early Space Race, It’s more complicated, but the essence is, Palin was right: the Soviets sowed the seed of their own collapse by setting off the Space Race.”

    Of course, few are more Palin deranged than Robert G.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Allen Thomson wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 10:00 am

    yeap…I linked that on my facebook page .Ted M. has done above his usual outstanding work here.

    One of the more entertaining and little studied battles of WW2 was the loss of HMAS Sydney to the German raider Kormoran. It shows what can be done with stealth and disguise (and is entertaining considering Sydney spent a some part of the war disguised as an Italian cruiser). Even though both ships were lost, the loss to the Aussies of the cruiser and her entire crew was far more devastating.

    It is not to hard to imagine how in GEO and to some extent in LEO something like that could be played out with spent booster stages and other “derelict” satellites.

    And the trick is that a country would have a hard time figuring out why the Asset denial…The US has these elint satellites with very big (and somewhat fragile) antenna arrays…

    and that is only the start of it…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Aremis Asling

    “If you’re going to pass yourself off as an ‘educator’ you best bone up on some history, particularly the origins of American missile program development”

    The American missile program development piggy-backed what was to become NASA into LEO and chaperoned them perhaps as far as GTO. Once a space vehicle leaves Earth orbit, however, the DoD doesn’t care one bit. They don’t care about Mars rovers, missions to asteroids, or orbiters around other planets. They don’t care about telescopes or monitoring the sun in multiple spectra. They don’t care about extrasolar planets. They sure as heck don’t care one little bit about putting people on the Moon, an Asteroid, or even the ISS. I’d venture to guess, given their recent unmanned spaceplane that they really couldn’t care about even putting crews into LEO at all. Robotic missions do the job just fine.

    And NASA has seen little benefit from missile programs for several decades. We’ve known how to fly and guide rockets for some time now. The big boy rockets we currently use for space exploration far outstrips most of the capabilities necessary to launch a point-to-point missile. Any relation to DoD missile programs is tangential at best.

    It’s very much akin to saying we should make the Department of Education part of the Department of Energy because our scientists have to go to school first. Yes, there is some connection, but the logic is REALLY shaky.

    “Today, post Cold War, it makes perfect sense to tuck NASA under the wing of the DoD, as the Age of Austerity takes hold.”

    Actually, now that we’re cutting back on our nuclear deterrent as a result of the end of the Cold War, there’s less justification for tying the two together, not more. Now that our enemies are more typically non-state operatives with nothing but guerilla ground troops and improvised devices, it makes extremely little sense to tie space to defense.

  • Scott Bass

    My comments are mostly directed at funding levels…..just like most government agencies, reorganization is badly needed…..That message is being heard loud and clear through SpaceX. Although I am a strong NASA supporter, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that much of our taxpayer money is being wasted by the agency.

  • common sense

    @ Scott Bass wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    “My comments are mostly directed at funding levels…..”

    No Scott your comments do not make sense when you want NASA to be under the DoD because you think they’d have a free ride.

    “just like most government agencies, reorganization is badly needed…..”

    You need to understand that the reorg must not only affect NASA but also the overall political environment it operates in. It is not all NASA’s fault. They are always under the pressure of some Congress idiotic measure such as SLS.

    “That message is being heard loud and clear through SpaceX. Although I am a strong NASA supporter, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that much of our taxpayer money is being wasted by the agency.”

    NASA is not the only agency wasting money. I am a strong NASA supporter too. And I want to see NASA thrive and develop, not become a zombie organization that will use its many talents to come up with PowerPoints. There is a strong need to redefine the agency’s role that was defined back in 1958 during the Cold War. Maybe, as I believe Doug Lassiter suggested, the Space Act were to incorporate “survival of the species” then maybe we could go forward with really impressive government funded programs. But so far it does not. So far the politics want to keep it 1958 because it seems to be less painful. But the coming storm as Rand Simberg put it may throw everything like a castle of cards.

  • common sense

    @ Aremis Asling wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 11:18 am

    “It’s very much akin to saying we should make the Department of Education part of the Department of Energy because our scientists have to go to school first.”

    That’s a very good point ;) That might increase the Dept. of Education budget quite substantially since our scientists but pretty much every one goes to school first. Nah, maybe not every one. Nice nonetheless…

  • Coastal Ron

    Rand Simberg wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Jim Oberg says that Palin was right:

    …Palin was right: the Soviets sowed the seed of their own collapse by setting off the Space Race.”

    The Soviet system was doomed to collapse as the world became smaller and more integrated, so it was more a matter of time than any specific event. With regards to the Space Race, it was one of many straws that led to the economic conditions that forced a change in the Soviet Union, but not a defining one.

    Today China faces the same economic pressures, but has “rolled with the punches” so to speak, which will provide capitalistic benefits without giving up their authoritarian rule….yet.

    But if this discussion is proof that Palin is starting to read history books, and understand the issues, well maybe there is hope for her as thought leader after all…

  • There is a strong need to redefine the agency’s role that was defined back in 1958 during the Cold War.

    The 1958 NASA was fine. It’s the 1961 NASA that needs to be redefined. It should be restored to the 1958 NASA.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand…Oberg is wrong. He is a smart guy but wrong on this

    this is my reply on that board and I repost it here

    Jim Oberg is simply wrong on this.

    First off what Palin says is that the Soviets won the space race. Her exact quote is “”Yeah, they won but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union,”

    That statement is factually wrong. There is nothing correct about it.

    The Soviets did not win the space race they did not get to the Moon first. They did not get to the Moon. There is no way to say “they won”

    Second the debt that they incurred in the race is not what lead to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet lunar program for humans was over well before the 1980’s arms buildup by President Ronald Wilson Reagan. There is an argument to be made (and I will make it) that Ronaldus the Great’s buildup of American armed forces, including the national strategic detterence put the Soviets in a race that they could not win either intellectually or financially. Capitalism will always, unless it is badly controlled
    will always out produce a fixed state economy…and that is what Reagan did.

    Jim wants to argue the notion that since we got to the Moon first that their fear of SDI being possible is what caused them to drain their economy. I think he is wrong, but THAT IS NOT WHAT PALIN WAS CLAIMING.

    If Palin wants to claim that then she should have said that. She did not…and I am not going to debate the claim Jim makes in terms of Palin’s comments.

    Palin claimed that the Soviets won the space race…and in that claim she was wrong. She claims that race bankrupted them and in that claim she was wrong.

    This is typical Palin. It wont take to many keystrokes to find that I advocated both publicly and on the McCain blog BEFORE the Florida primary (and as a somewhat major money rounder upper to the McCain campaign I advocated to my friends in the campaign ) that Palin be considered for the VP slot.

    After being picked she proved to be lazy and careless with her statements…and this is an example of it. No attempts at extrapolating the data fixes basic errors

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    dont get bogged down in Jim Oberg’s restatement of what Palin said.

    What Palin said is wrong. Jim might want to restate it for her, but what she said is in both statements factually incorrect.

    No amount of extrapolation of the data will fix basic errors.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anne Spudis

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Actually James Oberg is paraphrasing from a passage in his book “Star-Crossed Orbits: Inside the U.S-Russian Space Alliance” (pages 13-14)

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9mjYC4rKFMUJ:ww.space.com/media/oberg_intro.pdf+oberg,+spudis,+sdi,+apollo&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

    Let’s see……..

    Spudis-Oberg-Palin

    vs

    Oler-Oler-Oler

    Hmmmmmmm….

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    “The 1958 NASA was fine. It’s the 1961 NASA that needs to be redefined. It should be restored to the 1958 NASA.”

    My point is that defining an agency during times of trouble such as the Cold War cannot withstand the passage of time. The amendments since clearly have not helped. There is a need for an overhaul of the agency and its position within the political system. I hope we don’t have to wait until the whole thing implodes.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Anne Spudis wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    I dont care what Jim Oberg is paraphrasing because Palin did not make that claim.

    If Palin had made that claim then we could debate (and have on this forum, you have brought it up before) the as you claim Oberg Spudis claim.

    Palin did not claim that. What she said is factually wrong…the Soviets did not win the “space race” and the space race did not bankrupt them.

    The subject is what Palin said. Not what you or Paul or Jim want her to have said.

    AS for the linkage your draw, Spudis-Oberg-Palin…I wouldnt falter myself by being grouped with aperson who thinks Africa is a country.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Das Boese

    Re:Space Race/Soviet Union

    In light of NASA’s ongoing struggle to develop any kind of useful, affordable STS-derived hardware, it’s a sad irony that the Soviet Union was doomed to collapse partly because of a space program they couldn’t afford… and yet in hindsight, their shuttle architecture was far superior, suffering from none of the issues that plague the STS, Constellation and now SLS.

    It had a ready-to-use HLV, a smaller rocket for crew and commercially useful hardware to boot… over 20 years ago.

    Had NASA built something closer to Energia-Buran, things would look very, very different today.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    “AS for the linkage your draw, Spudis-Oberg-Palin…I wouldnt falter myself by being grouped with aperson who thinks Africa is a country.”

    Thanks for the weekend laugh! :) Goes to show what I said about “fundamentalists”. Can’t wait for the next presidential campaign to start and read herein the comments!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Das Boese wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    “It had a ready-to-use HLV, a smaller rocket for crew and commercially useful hardware to boot… over 20 years ago.”

    and Ivan could not afford it either.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Joe

    Anne Spudis wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 3:02 am
    Joe wrote @ January 27th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    “My efforts of quoting and posting the occasional link are done in the hope that readers will learn and understand the history as well as the way out of this impasse.”

    Sorry I am so long getting back to this and I hope you see this response. You could get the impression from some around here that your inputs are not appreciated. That is not the case. I had considered myself fairly knowledgeable about the history of the VSE, but until your posts I had never realized (gotten it through my thick skull is more like it) that a split between the OSTP and NASA over the intent of the VSE occurred in the early stages of its development under the Bush Administration. So you enlightened at least one reader (me) and I expect others as well.

  • Anne Spudis

    Joe wrote @ January 29th, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Thank you for taking the time to tell me that Joe. I appreciate it very much.

    By understanding what led up to this we can try to salvage something. Too many are trying so hard to fracture the space community. I’m afraid, that when the dust settles, we will be left with nothing. Commercial and NASA working together was always the goal, now they are squared off in a death match, with people becoming fractious and setting up opposing camps, rather than coming together for the good of the country and our space program.

  • Coastal Ron

    Anne Spudis wrote @ January 29th, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    Commercial and NASA working together was always the goal, now they are squared off in a death match, with people becoming fractious and setting up opposing camps…

    If you look hard enough, you can find people that believe the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us. Is “they” a big enough group to pay attention to, or are they just part of the fringe like you find in any large gathering?

    However, in the case of commercial space and NASA, most of the people I see blogging here that support commercial space also support NASA being the leading edge of exploration. They also know that NASA is the biggest customer for the type of services that commercial space wants to add (like cargo & crew), so “they” would not advocate for the “death” of NASA.

    Out of curiosity, for the “people” you think are “squared off in a death match” with NASA, what are they advocating?

    Oh, and I guess this means you fully support the goals of NASA as put forth by it’s current leadership?

  • @Robert G. Oler:

    What would be the point of the Ares I or an HLV-without-a-mission? It seems the primary reason the 2010 Authorization contained such a short deadline is the desire for a US crew launch capability – HLV can wait a bit.

    This would put us on a clear path to an HLV, while providing crew launch capability at a much earlier date than would be possible if it were necessary to build and man-rate the entire beast. Once it’s operational, add SRBs and voila – you have an HLV nearly identical to the Ares V.

    Note that the HL-X1 concept comes from NASA, and is/was intended to be the configuration used in the first HLV flight test. SRBs would be added with HL-X2. Only the idea of actually using a similar configuration for crew is mine. Boeing has since independently proposed something very similar, albeit with an 8.4m tank and only 4 engines: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLX4wxxT-QNNDBiZWEyMjktZTdkYS00YTBjLWE1NTYtMjE1NWVkODM5NTg3

  • Das Boese

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    “and Ivan could not afford it either.”

    Yeah… that’s the “sad irony” part.

    The Russians eventually let it go. They figured out how to do the things they needed to do with the technology they could afford, and worked from there.

  • Byeman

    HL-X1 is another duplication of existing capabilities and is not needed. US crew launch capability can use existing vehicles.

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ January 30th, 2011 at 1:43 am

    This would put us on a clear path to an HLV, while providing crew launch capability at a much earlier date than would be possible if it were necessary to build and man-rate the entire beast. Once it’s operational, add SRBs and voila – you have an HLV nearly identical to the Ares V.

    Doesn’t that seem a little backwards? Wouldn’t it be better to gain launch confidence with the cargo version first, then add what’s missing for carrying crew?

    Back in the 60’s you had to have a certain amount of risk involved with first time crew launches, because there wasn’t a big need for cargo launches, and you could only afford so many tests.

    I think one of the great reasons for using commercial launchers for crew is that their flight rate is high enough to continually keep improving the dependability of all their systems, and adding crew is an incremental change, not a completely new system.

    That’s one of the reasons I have advocated to pursue one (if not both) of the ULA launchers (Atlas V & Delta IV Heavy) as primary crew launchers for future manned systems. Falcon 9 can also be added to that list, contingent of course on successful CRS missions.

    For less than $3B, the U.S. can have three human-rated launchers ready within 3-5 years, and capable of launching LEO and exploration capsules. These launchers are also far less expensive to operate, since they will also be operating as cargo versions in between crew flights, so overhead costs are kept to a minimum, and flight systems are continuously improved regardless of whether crew fly or not.

    An HLV operating as a crew launcher could never match the flight heritage of commercial launchers, so an HLV would actually be LESS SAFE to use for crew than commercial. In fact, there are no big downsides to using multiple commercial crew systems for NASA and other U.S. crew needs, whereas using a government-run HLV that depends on the whims of Congress is fraught with lots of cost and dependability issues.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    The Atlas V can easily be ruled out simply due to its Russian engine. That leaves the Delta IV, which really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The Medium variant couldn’t lift the Orion, and the Heavy is three of them strapped together… Not the most elegant design ever. I’d really rather see a completely inline design. As for heritage, the Delta IV Heavy has only been launched 5 times, with 4 successes (15 total launches for all variants).

    Further, I’m confident that man-rating a core-only Ares IV wouldn’t cost any more than man-rating the Delta IV Heavy.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    Forgot to mention that the Falcon 9 does seem promising, but I just don’t want to count on it at this stage. Also, like the Atlas and Delta IV, it doesn’t set us on a clear path an HLV…

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ January 30th, 2011 at 3:16 pm & 3:18 pm

    the Heavy is three of them [Delta IV CBC] strapped together… Not the most elegant design ever.

    Define “elegant”.

    If elegant is not two boosters strapped onto a single core, then Shuttle and SDLV’s with SRB’s are not elegant either.

    Instead of fluffy words like “elegant”, let’s just stick with facts. Delta IV Heavy lifts 50,000 lbs to LEO, and is the preferred heavy launcher for our Defense and Intelligence agencies. If they’re fine with launching multi-billion $$ payloads on Delta IV Heavy, I’m fine with using it to launch crew. Besides the failure mode of liquid fueled launchers is a lot more benign than launchers with SRM’s, so it’s win-win.

    The Atlas V can easily be ruled out simply due to its Russian engine.

    I keep hearing this silly comment, but that doesn’t keep the DoD, NRO and NASA from using Atlas V today, so why would that change for tomorrow?

    If the choice is using Russian rockets to get our astronauts to space, or using American rockets with some Russian components, I’m for the American rocket – the more American content the better.

    Further, I’m confident that man-rating a core-only Ares IV wouldn’t cost any more than man-rating the Delta IV Heavy.

    Delta IV Heavy is operational, and ULA the incremental cost to upgrade it for crew is $1.3B ($800M pad, $500M human rating.

    The cost to build an HLV is probably 10X that, so yes, it would cost a lot more to get an HLV (human rated or not) than it would to upgrade Delta IV Heavy. Also, the cost to launch Delta IV Heavy once man-rated would be $300M/flight, again according to ULA (Augustine testimony in 2009), which would likely be far less than an infrequently used HLV.

    Also, like the Atlas and Delta IV, it [Falcon 9] doesn’t set us on a clear path an HLV…

    This is a weird statement for a couple of reasons:

    1. Why does an HLV have to be our primary method of getting crew to orbit? Even Constellation realized that you only needed to get crew to LEO, and then hook up with your departure stage. Why does everything have to be so custom with HLV lovers?

    2. Why don’t you want to utilize existing launchers? This truly baffles me. It’s like HLV lovers think money grows on trees. Or that all they have to say is that it would be nice to launch 300 tons to orbit 12 times a year, and everyone will believe that rockets are cheap and payloads are free.

    3. Having Congress determine what size rockets are needed for the future heralds back to the centrally planned days of the Soviet Union (and we all know how that turned out). Instead, Congress & the Administrations should be defining the goals, NASA should be defining what it’s transportation needs are, and the space industry will identify the options and pricing. Virtually every other department in government uses this method, whereas NASA is still viewed as a source money for Congress, not for getting anything done.

    My $0.02

  • @Coastal Ron:

    I agree wholeheartedly with your 3rd point.

    However, jumping back, I don’t mean to say that an should “be our primary method of getting crew to orbit” should be an HLV – any more than an Ares I would be considered an HLV just because it’s part of one. I also agree that using SRMs on a crew vehicle doesn’t make sense, which is why I prefer an HL-X1 or similar to an Ares I or Ares IV. But I don’t like the concept of anything other than a fully inline rocket – and no, I don’t consider the Shuttle or SDLVs with SRBs (when used for crew) elegant either.

    As for why I don’t want to use an existing launcher: Because the Delta IV and Atlas V could never be made into an HLV, and we *must* have a clear path to an HLV. Without a clear path, the probability of an HLV not being built this side of 2030 becomes far too high for comfort. Further, I never said that I thought an HLV program would cost less than man-rating a Delta IV Heavy – I merely said that man-rating a core-only variant of an HLV (which will presumably be built anyway) wouldn’t cost any more…

  • Wow, perhaps I need to proofread things before I post them. :P

    That should be: “However, jumping back, I don’t mean to say ‘our primary method of getting crew to orbit’ should be an HLV…”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Anne Spudis wrote @ January 29th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    ” rather than coming together for the good of the country and our space program”

    come together “how”.? By agreeing to one of the very goofy plans that your husband has put forward, one that doesnt have a chance of gaining any public support? YOu know like spending 100 billion dollars to get water from the moon when we could launch the same amount from earth for under 2 billion?

    Or perhaps we should all join together and support more useless government spending at NASA toward a solar power station that will produce less electricity (25KW) then a decent backyard solar array?

    What “we should all come together” means to people on the “lets support big government NASA programs” is that we support big government NASA programs.

    And when the logic of why we should support 100 billion dollar programs for 2 billion dollars worth of water fails then folks like you throw up wait let me get your quote we should “ogether for the good of the country and our space program””

    The good of the country is important and you have failed to explain why “the space program” as you envision it is a vital part of that good.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ January 30th, 2011 at 1:43 am

    “What would be the point of the Ares I or an HLV-without-a-mission? ”

    that wont do it. You dont create hardware and then say “lets figure out something for it to do”. We tried that with the shuttle. When the shuttle flopped at its goals the next thing that they did was go “lets figure out something we can do with this hardware”.

    Everyone who says “we have to have Ares 1 or this or that HLV …needs to explain why current vehicles cannot be used for whatever they want Ares 1 or this or that HLV for.

    YOu have to give Paul spudis this. He doesnt have any problem advocating things that have no value for the amount of cost…but they do have something that they plan on doing. Spudis might want to spend 100 billion to collect 2 billion dollars worth of water if launched from earth…but at least he has a plan.

    Most of the folks are just “lets build it” and then see what we can do with it.

    Thats goofy

    Robert G. Oler

  • byeman

    “we *must* have a clear path to an HLV.”

    False, there is no need for an HLV, much less a path. We need cheap lift before any HLV.

  • But I don’t like the concept of anything other than a fully inline rocket – and no, I don’t consider the Shuttle or SDLVs with SRBs (when used for crew) elegant either.

    I don’t think you can imagine the depth of our indifference to what some anonymous person on the Internet likes or dislikes. When you have your own billions to waste, then you can go on and build any foolish concept you wish. We’re more interested in concepts that are cost effective, and likely to actually open up space.

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ January 30th, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    Because the Delta IV and Atlas V could never be made into an HLV, and we *must* have a clear path to an HLV.

    We can build an HLV anytime we want, “clear path” or not. We had one back in the 60’s when we needed one (Saturn V), but we haven’t had a need for one since.

    But you are wrong about Delta IV and Atlas V, since ULA published their upgrade path for both launchers years ago. For instance, using existing Delta IV tooling and existing launch pads, they can grow Atlas up to a 70t class launcher. With a new launch pad and new engine development, they can create a launcher in the 100t class.

    Without a clear path, the probability of an HLV not being built this side of 2030 becomes far too high for comfort.

    So what? It’s funny, because you agreed with me when I said that Congress defining an HLV was backwards, but here you are again pushing for a transportation system that has no need or demand.

    In the free market, if there is demand enough for a product or service, and the amount the customer is willing to pay is high enough, then the free market will come up with solutions.

    So the real answer to the question “do we need an HLV?” is NO at this point, but if NASA or some other entity needs more mass in space than what our current fleet of launchers can supply, then a free market solution (or more than one) will appear. Capitalism does work if you let it, but so far Congress thinks it’s smarter – in this case, I for one doubt that.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Speaking about history, its uses and abuses: In my view, there have been so many mistatements of history in this discussion that it is pretty futile for me to take any time to correct any of them, particularly in a place as ephemeral as an internet forum.

    I have more important business to take care of, specifically some notes on a new recent major North American impact event.

    Perhaps someday I will put my History of Cosmonautics into a form available to many people – maybe an ibook with lots of pictures, large type, simple words, and material released since I wrote it.

    If you ask around, perhaps someone will send you drafts of the first four volumes.

    This obsfucating “discussion” of historical “factcs” is blowing a could of smoke which is ceovering up the essential problem with the US manned space program, which is that the Utah delegation is killing it.

  • E.P. Grondine

    that should read “cloud” not “could”

  • E.P. Grondine

    that should read “cloud” not “could”, and “covering” not “ceovering”.
    and “facts” not “factcs”. My home computer with its online spell checker is out of action now. Otherwise the whole comment might read easier as well.

  • @Robert G. Oler:

    “What would be the point of the Ares I or an HLV-without-a-mission? ”

    that wont do it. You dont create hardware and then say “lets figure out something for it to do”

    I was implying that the main point was for it to launch crew to the ISS… Like the Ares I and the current SLS proposal.

    @Rand Simberg:
    Wow. I knew comments here could get a bit flamey, but really? I won’t even dignify that with a response. That comment would get you a warning on most forums…

  • @Coastal Ron:

    But you are wrong about Delta IV and Atlas V, since ULA published their upgrade path for both launchers years ago. For instance, using existing Delta IV tooling and existing launch pads, they can grow Atlas up to a 70t class launcher. With a new launch pad and new engine development, they can create a launcher in the 100t class.

    I’d be very interested in a link regarding that. I haven’t heard of any such plans for Atlas myself, beyond strapping three CCBs together to make something that would look similar to a Delta IV Heavy (and at that point, why not just use a Delta IV Heavy?).

    But, that brings me back to your comment that we don’t need an HLV now, and that I’m advocating an HLV without a purpose. You’ll have to forgive for not making it clear in my earlier posts that what I advocate is a clear plan to go to Mars, via the Moon (cf. the Vision for Space Exploration). The only thing worse than telling NASA how to build a rocket is not telling them what it’s for.

    With that, and a reasonable budget, I trust the good folks at MSFC to come up with the best rocket(s). And I think that part of that may end up being a “liquid stick” along the lines of the HL-X1 or Boeing’s proposal. I mention it primarily out of my distaste for the 2010 Authorization and its narrow requirements that forbid anything like that (70 tons, and a specific mention of SRBs in the accompanying report). I can’t help but think that NASA could come up with something far better if it weren’t for the narrow requirements they’re operating under…

  • With that, and a reasonable budget, I trust the good folks at MSFC to come up with the best rocket(s).

    Why? There’s no historical basis for such trust. They haven’t successfully built a rocket since the seventies (and arguably, since the sixties, since Shuttle failed in most of its design goals). And all the people involved with those efforts are pretty much retired or dead. NASA needs to get out of the rocket business and leave it to people who actually successfully do it for a living, so that the agency can focus on actual exploration and technology development.

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ January 31st, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    “There’s no historical basis for such trust.”

    Blind trust of the devotee. No ad hominem. Really, I condiser(ed) myself one…

  • @Rand Simberg:

    Now you’re blaming problems with the Shuttle program on NASA? They delivered what they could, on time and below budget. You think they wouldn’t have preferred to keep going with the Apollo program instead? The Shuttle can be blamed on Nixon, plain and simple.

  • Robert G. Oler

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ January 31st, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    why should we spend another 10-20 billion on Ares 1 to launch people to the space station…there are already vehicles that can do just that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Now you’re blaming problems with the Shuttle program on NASA? They delivered what they could, on time and below budget.

    They did? On what planet did that occur? On this one they were three years late (original estimate 1978, I believe) and the vehicle never achieved its flight rate, cost or reliability/safety goals.

    The Shuttle can be blamed on Nixon, plain and simple.

    Ah, the last (well, OK, often first) refuge of an historically ignorant simpleton. Yes, it’s all Nixon’s fault. A pinch-penny Congress and an agency that bit off a lot more than it could chew technologically had nothing to do with it.

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ January 31st, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    I’d be very interested in a link regarding that.

    Here it is:

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

    I haven’t heard of any such plans for Atlas myself, beyond strapping three CCBs together to make something that would look similar to a Delta IV Heavy (and at that point, why not just use a Delta IV Heavy?).

    It appears that you are not familiar with what the existing or near-term choices are for commercial launchers. That’s OK if you’re just presenting opinions, but if you’re making the kind of declarative statements that you make, it doesn’t make you look good.

    Besides the ULA slides on the link above, you should also check out the ULA website (http://www.unitedlaunchalliance.com) to see what the differences are between the current Delta IV Heavy, and the future Atlas V Heavy. After that, check out the SpaceX website too (http://www.spacex.com) to see what the Falcon 9 Heavy performance is, and it’s current price.

    Note that Atlas V Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy, which lift considerably more than Delta IV Heavy (28% & 40% respectively) don’t have customers that need them yet, so that should be an indication of what the commercial and DoD/NRO needs are, as well as NASA.

    Regarding strapping multiple cores or adding strap on boosters to increase lift performance, you may have a personal dislike for this type of design, but the professionals in the rocket business do not. And really, you can’t argue with the success they have had so far…

  • @Coastal Ron:

    It appears that you are not familiar with what the existing or near-term choices are for commercial launchers.

    Well, as I mentioned before, I don’t think a Russian engine would be politically acceptable, so I haven’t spent terribly much time researching the Atlas V and variants thereof. (Which isn’t to say I don’t like the idea myself, just that enough others don’t that I can’t see bothering to advocate it unless it’s somehow vastly superior, which it isn’t.)

    That’s OK if you’re just presenting opinions, but if you’re making the kind of declarative statements that you make, it doesn’t make you look good.

    Seeing as we’re commenting on a blog post, I assume opinions are generally to be expected. What are comment sections for, but a great clashing of ideas? :)

    Regarding strapping multiple cores or adding strap on boosters to increase lift performance, you may have a personal dislike for this type of design, but the professionals in the rocket business do not. And really, you can’t argue with the success they have had so far…

    Success like Columbia? Oh, wait… (Yes, I know it’s a lot harder to damage another core than what happened to Columbia, but still…)

    Besides that, common sense dictates that the simpler something is, the more reliable it is – and strapping three cores together isn’t the simplest thing when compared to a single core (especially when you get into 100+ ton territory, and you’re strapping five cores together to do what a single, larger core and a couple SRBs could do).

  • Byeman

    A segmented SRM is not simple, it is very labor intensive and process sensitive.

  • Seeing as we’re commenting on a blog post, I assume opinions are generally to be expected.

    If you want to avoid, or at least minimize criticism, you will state them as opinions (and in your case uninformed ones), rather than holy writ.

  • Vladislaw

    “Besides that, common sense dictates that the simpler something is, the more reliable it is – and strapping three cores together isn’t the simplest thing when compared to a single core (especially when you get into 100+ ton territory, and you’re strapping five cores together to do what a single, larger core and a couple SRBs could do).”

    That doesn’t always hold true, you can not just keep going bigger. The law of diminishing returns shows us that. By going bigger you are creating a logistics headache for moving that core around.

    by strapping smaller cores together you gain economies of scale by producing more of the same product. Instead of building 2 cores per year for a heavy you get to build a dozen of the smaller ones, lowering costs.

    By going small you increase the flight rate, again lowering costs.

    By going small you can incorporate incremental changes for a LOT lower costs then with one huge rocket.

    From the Hoover Dam to the largest skyscrapers we have managed to do it with hauling the materials with 18 wheel semi trailers. We have to think of space the same as we do on the ground.

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 2:24 am

    Well, as I mentioned before, I don’t think a Russian engine would be politically acceptable…

    And as I already pointed out, the DoD, NRO and NASA don’t share your thinking. Oh well, horse, water…

    I can’t see bothering to advocate it unless it’s somehow vastly superior, which it isn’t.

    Can you name a better engine choice for Atlas V? I’m sure ULA would love to hear how they can lower costs and increase performance.

    Success like Columbia?

    You blew that one. I gave you the opportunity to use the Challenger as an example of strap-on boosters failing, but instead you used an example of why sidemount crew configurations are dangerous. I guess that means we can peg you as a non-technical person.

    Besides that, common sense dictates that the simpler something is, the more reliable it is…

    Luckily engineers use math and science instead of common sense, otherwise we wouldn’t be flying at all.

    And who is to say that one engine is more reliable than say nine, like on the Falcon 9? Nine simple engines versus one complex one? Falcon 9 can still complete it’s mission with one engine out – can your single engine rocket? Nothing is 100% reliable, so once you understand that, you can understand why designers choose to build their rockets as they do.

    …to do what a single, larger core and a couple SRBs could do

    Make up your mind. Boosters are bad, or they’re good – try to stick with one.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    “Luckily engineers use math and science instead of common sense, otherwise we wouldn’t be flying at all.”

    ouch!

    ;)

  • @Coastal Ron:

    And as I already pointed out, the DoD, NRO and NASA don’t share your thinking. Oh well, horse, water…

    Tell that to Congress. :P

    I imagine it would be far less of an issue if Pratt & Whitney started utilizing their license to build the RD-180 domestically, but I don’t find that very likely either.

    Can you name a better engine choice for Atlas V? I’m sure ULA would love to hear how they can lower costs and increase performance.

    I was actually talking about Atlas V with the RD-180 not being vastly superior to other rockets, not a better engine for the Atlas V (although rocket porn would have an RS-84 on it).

    I gave you the opportunity to use the Challenger as an example of strap-on boosters failing, but instead you used an example of why sidemount crew configurations are dangerous.

    Bah. It’s an example of anything but a fully inline stack being a bad idea in general, not just sidemount crew. I could have cited Challenger, but that was primarily an SRM failure, not just a generic booster failure, and I haven’t heard you advocate SRMs (yet).

    And who is to say that one engine is more reliable than say nine, like on the Falcon 9? Nine simple engines versus one complex one? Falcon 9 can still complete it’s mission with one engine out – can your single engine rocket?

    I don’t recall ever advocating a single-engine rocket (that would be lunacy). I was advocating 3-6 engines on a single core, like the Saturn INT-20 (or the S-IC, for that matter). Also, the RS-68B is planned to be a fairly simple engine.

    Make up your mind. Boosters are bad, or they’re good – try to stick with one.

    They’re bad for crewed launches. For cargo, they make perfect sense. Marshall fought tooth and nail for liquid boosters on the Shuttle, but in the end they just didn’t have the funding.

  • @Rand Simberg:

    Now you’re blaming problems with the Shuttle program on NASA? They delivered what they could, on time and below budget.

    They did? On what planet did that occur? On this one they were three years late (original estimate 1978, I believe) and the vehicle never achieved its flight rate, cost or reliability/safety goals.

    Try going to http://caib.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030423/transcript_am.html and searching for “big myth” on that page.

    Key quote from the original Space Shuttle Program Director:

    Again, one of the big myths on the shuttle is that it was way over budget. That’s an absolute myth. In December of ’71, when Jim Fletcher and George Low went to San Clemente to present the final recommendation to President Nixon, we prepared a letter that George and Jim took with them, a one-page letter. That letter said that we felt we could build the configuration that you now know as the shuttle for a total cost of $5.15 billion in the purchasing power of the 1971 dollar but that it would take another billion dollars of contingency funding over and above that to handle the contingencies that always develop in a program like this. So you need to budget 6.15 billion in the purchasing power of the ’71 dollar and that we could build it and fly it by 1979 if everything went perfectly, but the $1 billion and 18 months ought to be planned in the program because that’s probably what will really happen and we’ll probably fly it in early ’81. That was in the document.

  • Try going to http://caib.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030423/transcript_am.html and searching for “big myth” on that page.

    Since I didn’t say it was over budget, I’m not sure what the point of your post is.

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Tell that to Congress.

    Are you implying that Congress is going to limit the use of Atlas V because of foreign components?

    I was actually talking about Atlas V with the RD-180 not being vastly superior to other rockets

    One size does not fit all. Delta IV is better for some missions, Atlas V for others, and that’s just ULA. Your mythical inline HLV will be a unique launcher, which means it’s a single-point-of-failure (SPOF) for any mission that depends on it.

    It’s an example of anything but a fully inline stack being a bad idea in general, not just sidemount crew.

    Nope. It’s just an example of where putting crew next to a rocket is less safe than on top, regardless of whether it’s single core or triple.

    Just out of curiosity, can you actually explain in quantifiable terms why an inline HLV is safer/better than something like Delta IV Heavy? I’m just curious, since every major space faring nation is committed to multi-core big launchers – what do you know that all of them don’t?

  • @Rand Simberg:

    But you did say they were behind schedule, which they weren’t, as that quote shows.

    I’ll go further, and say that if they had been properly funded during development, the operational costs would have been much lower and the capabilities greater.

    See Doomed from the Beginning at the TSGC site if you’d like a simple explanation of [some of] what when wrong with the program.

    Again, key quote:

    It has been estimated that a Space Shuttle system could have been built which was much more reliable, much safer, and much cheaper to operate with no extra design and development costs if the funding had been provided on an orderly schedule which matched the needs of the design and development process. The way that the Space Shuttle design and development program was funded is clearly an example of the Fram oil filter TV commercial “You can pay me now or you can pay me (a LOT more) later”.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    Are you implying that Congress is going to limit the use of Atlas V because of foreign components?

    Yes. They see NASA as a workfare program, and foreign components don’t fit into that. I don’t agree with it personally, but that’s their thinking.

    One size does not fit all. Delta IV is better for some missions, Atlas V for others, and that’s just ULA.

    But not vastly better…

    Your mythical inline HLV will be a unique launcher, which means it’s a single-point-of-failure (SPOF) for any mission that depends on it.

    Again, I’m not proposing an inline HLV any more than a Saturn IB or Ares I would be considered an HLV just because parts of them are used in an HLV. At absolute most, it could lift 40 tons. It’s a man-rated core-only launcher for getting crew to LEO that shares components with an HLV (meaning it’s not a terribly “unique launcher” as you put it, either).

    Further, I just don’t see an Atlas V lifting 140+ tons. It may be able to made into an HLV, but perhaps I should say that I feel we need a clear path to an SHLV.

    …every major space faring nation is committed to multi-core big launchers…

    Except the US, the only country besides Russia that can currently launch humans, where NASA has heavily resisted crew launchers that aren’t fully inline. Just take a look at some of the reports leading up to the Constellation program…

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    Except the US, the only country besides Russia that can currently launch humans, where NASA has heavily resisted crew launchers that aren’t fully inline.

    NASA hasn’t had to address this question since the end of the Constellation program, and Lockheed Martin is already planning on launching the MPCV on Delta IV Heavy, so if there is a heavy crew carrier that needs to go up (bigger than Dragon or CST-100), then Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy are the more likely candidates since they have (or will have) a long flight heritage to point back to.

    I don’t think there is the resistance to multi-core launchers that you think there is. If you can show evidence to the contrary, great, but until then commercial is moving to multi-core because of the obvious cost and reliability benefits.

    In any case, an HLV of any kind is unlikely to be a crew launcher, as the economics of launching crew on smaller launchers is so overwhelming – qualifying an HLV for crew is really expensive, and the flight rate will never be that high.

    Once you separate those two economically (crew & cargo), modular cargo construction will likely reduce the need for HLV’s, and turn a government funded one into a HUGE budget drag for NASA. There is only so much money Congress will give NASA, and operating an HLV is not cheap. That is why contracting out those LEO transportation needs to the commercial sector will actually save NASA money, and let them spend more on space technology and exploration.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    I don’t think there is the resistance to multi-core launchers that you think there is. If you can show evidence to the contrary, great, but until then commercial is moving to multi-core because of the obvious cost and reliability benefits.

    Evidence to the contrary, agreed with by the Crew Survival Office:

    The simplest designs of the EELVs, which offer the greatest potential for inherent reliability, are the single core variants. These single core EELVs with an effective crew escape system should provide the greatest crew safety. Unfortunately, the single core EELVs are unable to meet the performance needs for the CEV mission, so the higher performance, more complex, less reliable multi-core “heavy” variants are required making it difficult to achieve the ascent risk goal proposed by the astronaut office for PLOC to be better than 1 in 1,000.

    Is it safe to assume you would agree that something like what I propose would be better than the currently-proposed SLS, even if you don’t agree that it’s better than an EELV or Falcon 9?

    BTW: I was just reminded of another vehicle that resembles the one I propose: The early ’90s NLS-2, capable of lifting 25 tons (handily the same weight as the Orion).

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ February 3rd, 2011 at 3:53 am

    Is it safe to assume you would agree that something like what I propose would be better than the currently-proposed SLS, even if you don’t agree that it’s better than an EELV or Falcon 9?

    No, but not for the reason you might think.

    Let’s get back to the basic question, which is how to get our crew to LEO.

    Let’s also look into the future and think about how we want to be traveling around. Do we want to be exploring space while living in a capsule? No.

    I think we’re very close to realizing that purpose-built space-only exploration vehicles is how we will travel around in space, and that capsules will only be used for going from Earth to LEO, returning to Earth from LEO and beyond, and as lifeboats in between. Capsules are not exploration vehicles, so adding those features creates an expensive hybrid that doesn’t do anything extremely well.

    Not to be left out is also winged crew carriers like Dream Chaser, which reinforces the clear delineation between the transportation function and the exploration one, since it makes no sense to haul around wings and rubber tires in a vacuum.

    With all that defined, now we can look at what is needed for pushing these simple, basic crew transportation systems into space. Most everyone agrees that Atlas V is the 1st launcher of choice for CST-100 and even Dream Chaser, and it has lots of flight heritage to use for validating it’s use for crew. Falcon 9, which is in the same capacity range, is already the choice for Dragon, and even Boeing has said that CST-100 could also fly on Falcon 9. Both of these launchers will be virtually identical to their cargo versions, so their reliability should be far higher than any government-run launcher like SLS, no matter it’s design.

    So in my mind, hybrid capsules like MPCV/Orion are not needed, as they will be quickly eclipsed by true space-only spacecraft. But in the meantime, Delta IV Heavy is the vehicle of choice by Lockheed Martin for at least doing the testing, and it would be far less expensive than using any government-run launcher.

    Regarding safety of any launcher, in addition to the heritage of the components (engines, electronics, software, etc.), you also have to look at the heritage of the launcher itself. In this case, any government-run launcher is going to have zero heritage on it’s first flight, and not much on it’s second. It’s going to take a lot of cargo flights to generate much flight heritage, and even then it will not have as much as the more frequently used commercial launchers.

    So while one rocket core is more safe than three, a three core configuration that is flown frequently has more flight heritage, and likely more potential reliability than a brand new government-run launcher. Ultimately it boils down to who you can trust more – the companies that launch rockets for a living, or the government, which has other people build it’s rockets, and other people service and prepare them?

    The choice is clear.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 10:53 am
    @Anne Spudis wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Unfortunately Jim Oberg is surprisingly inaccurate (or deliberately vague) on this given his usually cogent commentary. He usually presents a more cogent POV. This time, not so much. .

    Examples:

    “the same pundits in the West and in Russian who pooh-poohed SDI had also pooh-poohed the odds of Apollo working.” <- Inaccurate.

    Critics in the U.S. (many fiscal conservatives in both opinion 'punditry' circles and elective office of the period) balked at Apollo chiefly based on the immense costs and the pork politics in play, not on the engineering ‘odds of Apollo working.’ (Example- soft-landers early on from both nations quieted the ‘deep-dusters.’) Even JFK entertained the idea of a joint lunar expedition early on as Apollo began to coalesce and the cost projections were made. In the USSR, Soviet space engineers, including Mishin and Glushko, lamented years after how underfunded Soviet space efforts were in the years bracketed between Sputnik and Apollo commonly referenced as the ‘space race,’ in comparison to Apollo funding– a race Palin glibly said they ‘won.’ And Russian ‘pundits’ voicing ‘dissent’ on Soviet government policy in 1950′s/1960′s USSR… perhaps- from a gulag, an environment Korelev himself knew all too well. http://www.historynet.com/the-scientist-who-survived-the-gulag-to-launch-sputnik.htm

    “the Soviets sowed the seed of their own collapse by setting off the Space Race.” <- Inaccurate.

    In fact, the U.S.– inadvertently or by intent– initiated what came to be known as a 'space race' by its own inaction. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/3/2004_3_44.shtml American space engineers, chiefly the Army missile team at Huntsville, were capable of orbiting a satellite at least a year earlier than Sputnik and were directed not to by the Eisenhower administration. http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/beginning-project-vanguard/ For the IGY- a non-military, global scientific initiative- Eisenhower indicated a desire to use a civilian research rocket under development, not a military missile, for the American effort to loft a satellite. Soviet scientists also indicated plans to loft a satellite for the IGY as well. http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/sputorig.html The Soviet R-7, used to launch Sputnik, was a military rocket by design. The central issue at the time from the American perspective, classified for years, involved over flight rights and a covert plan by Eisenhower to develop a spy satellite capability for the U.S. to replace the more risky use of aircraft over flights of the Soviet Union. Recently declassified information indicates the ‘Sputnik moment’ worked to Eisenhower’s advantage. By lofting Sputnik, the Soviets verified free access to space by their own act, all but voiding any disputes on over flight rights and national sovereignty in space– something very much in question in the 1950′s. It also made the eventuality of a new American spy satellite system, known today as 'Corona,' that much more legitimate. It was the public and the press that panicked over Sputnik. Eisenhower’s reaction at the time was highly criticized for being far too cool and dismissive, but in fact, it fit with his planning, strategy and goal… pressing on to establish, in secret, a space reconnaissance capability for the U.S.

    The fact Ms. Palin's comments need to be repeatedly clarified on intent by supporters, or via Fox follow-up appearences speaks volumes. Such is the cult of celebrity. But she's not a 'go-to' person on specific space activities past, present or future nor history in general. More's the pity. Former GOP conservative Congressman and current MSNBC host Joe Scarborough best summed up Ms. Palin's political fortunes when he stated, in simple, Palinesque terms even her most devoted followers could comprehend: "It's over."

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 6:07 am
    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 6:03 am

    There's no such thing as 'space warfare'- at least in the physical sense. And there won't be. you pose a strawman's arguement. The DoD will do as it's told regarding the fate of NASA. Tucking NASA under the protective wing of the DoD through the Age of Austerity makes perfect sense, particularly with a nat'l security umbrella to shield budgets. Given the origins of America's missile programs, it would be a 'back to the future' move and an effective use of assets on hand. But then, it's easy to understand why commercial space advocates and/or shills (Simberg/Oler, et. al.,) would balk at such a wise move.

  • Tucking NASA under the protective wing of the DoD through the Age of Austerity makes perfect sense, particularly with a nat’l security umbrella to shield budgets.

    No matter how many times you repeat that something that makes no sense whatsoever and is never going to happen, “makes perfect sense,” it remains lunacy.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ February 3rd, 2011 at 5:37 pm
    It’s easy to see why commercial space shills are desperate to avoid such a wise move. Your fear is easily discerned. If you’re going to pass yourself off as an educator, you’d best educate yourself of the orgins of America’s ‘space’ program. It rests with the military– which wasn’t very keen on losing it at the time of NASA’s formation. Those assets today would find a good home under the wing of the DoD, with a more secure furture through the Age of Austerity.

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ February 3rd, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    I do not agree with your view about NASA under the DoD and a lot of people think it won’t ever happen. But I am thinking that maybe you could explain to us how it would work, knowing the the Space Act actually prohibits it. So and I am serious since maybe I and others have missed something, how do you propose that to happen?

    I hope you will answer more than with a slogan. Please.

  • DCSCA

    @common sense wrote @ February 3rd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    The Space Act is a piece of paper and can be amended/changed. Even the Reagan administration figured that out. It’s a matter of assuring funding and pooling assets through a terribly austere period. Back in the day when the ‘space program’ and missile development was actually run as an element of the DoD, on a smaller scale, the NRL was staffed chiefly by civilians and operated/funded through the auspices of the DoD as they developed Vanguard. It’s easy to see why commercial space advocates would balk at tucking NASA under DoD’s wing. But the primary concern in these times is to maintain some kind of funding through the Age of Austerity for mid and long term planning and a ‘civilian space agency’ conceived for political purposes in the depths of the Cold War is a luxury appearing more and more out of step with current economic and political realities. As it stands now, NASA is a Cold War relic of an age long gone. The USSR dissolved 12/25/91–and with it the ‘Cold War’– nearly two decades ago. NASA’s future lay with becoming a civilian division of the DoD, under the umbrella of nat’l security, where the planning (ie. funding) for mid and long term space projects which need consistent funding has at least a chance of surviving through the Age of Austerity. As it stand now, the ‘civilian’ space agency- (which already uses many military-trained astronauts as crews for HSF activities and planning, BTW) is a sitting duck- ripe for budget cutting. And rightly so. It’s a luxury a nation, which has to borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends, simply can no longer afford.

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ February 3rd, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    You still did not provide any idea as to how to make it a DoD protege. The only plan you offer is this below. My question again is how do you plan to go about it? Politically? What is it you propose so that Congress makes an amendment to the Space Act to go 180 degrees and make NASA a branch of the DoD? What are your arguments to Congress? Bring your case forth so that we can discuss it.

    BTW, not all astronauts are military actually I believe fewer are coming from the military.

    “The Space Act is a piece of paper and can be amended/changed. Even the Reagan administration figured that out.”

  • DCSCA

    @common sense wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 12:47 am
    “BTW, not all astronauts are military actually I believe fewer are coming from the military.” Read it again- it says MANY.

    As it stand now, the ‘civilian’ space agency- (which already uses many military-trained astronauts as crews for HSF activities and planning, BTW)

  • Vladislaw

    common sense wrote:

    “You still did not provide any idea as to how to make it a DoD protege. The only plan you offer is this below. My question again is how do you plan to go about it? Politically? What is it you propose so that Congress makes an amendment to the Space Act to go 180 degrees and make NASA a branch of the DoD?”

    The only way I could see that senerio ever happening is if there was enough votes in congress to actually shut NASA down. That would be the only way to maybe getting around those votes to save it. But there is nowhere even close to the number of votes needed to end NASA. Hell even Rand Paul doesn’t defund it and he is quite possibly the the biggest budget hawk in congress.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    I think we’re very close to realizing that purpose-built space-only exploration vehicles is how we will travel around in space…

    Well, if that’s how you feel, I can understand your lack of support. I, on the other hand, don’t think such a thing will be practical in the near future…

    Also, speaking of Dream Chaser, it should be noted that the HL-20 from which it’s based was originally meant to be launched on the aforementioned NLS-2 (see this paper for an analysis)…

    Thought experiment: If an SLS-style HLV were already a given (which I believe it to be), then would you support a core-only variant for crew launches, rather than man-rating the version with SRBs?

    P.S.A better link regarding the Phase 2 EELV plan: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf

  • Coastal Ron

    WulfTheSaxon wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Well, if that’s how you feel, I can understand your lack of support. I, on the other hand, don’t think such a thing will be practical in the near future…

    Other than Lockheed Martin, which builds the Orion/MPCV, no one is proposing exploring space in capsules. I think most people would think that living in a capsule for months on end would be impractical. An interesting view into your thinking…

    Also, speaking of Dream Chaser, it should be noted that the HL-20 from which it’s based was originally meant to be launched on the aforementioned NLS-2

    And now they are looking at Atlas V.

    Thought experiment: If an SLS-style HLV were already a given (which I believe it to be), then would you support a core-only variant for crew launches, rather than man-rating the version with SRBs?

    I’m a market-oriented type person, so the first test any new transportation system has to pass is whether there is a need for it. So far the current SLS does not pass that test, regardless if Congress wants to spend money on it or not.

    Secondly, the SLS perpetuates the view that space is a program, and not a place, which muffles the expansion of commerce into space. Any NASA transportation system that is dependent on the whims of Congress is not likely to expand past NASA’s needs. We’ve already seen the DoD learn this lesson with the Shuttle, and they won’t repeat that mistake. Likewise, the commercial sector would never depend on NASA for critical business needs, so NASA will end up with a NASA-only transportation system that can only survive on the largesse of Congress.

    So no, I would not support any version of the SLS for crew launches.

    Maybe if you could convince me (and others) that the crew version of the SLS is the most cost effective way to get crew to orbit, AND that it’s not a Single-Point-Of-Failure (SPOF) again like the Shuttle – then it would be worth taking a second look at. Can you?

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler 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>