Republican senators are concerned about US support for an outer space “code of conduct”, the Washington Times reported Friday. The article says that 37 Republican senators have sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton, claiming that the code could restrict development of systems to protect satellites from ASAT weapons. The article also reports that the administration is expected to release today a long-awaited National Security Space Strategy, which may include explicit support for the EU Code.
Former NASA chief of staff Courtney Stadd is scheduled to report to prison today to begin serving a 41-month federal sentence for conspiracy to steer NASA funds to his consulting company. In an email to friends and family earlier this week, obtained by Space News, Stadd said he had expected a lighter sentence, of about 24 months, based on a plea bargain with prosecutors. However, in the sentencing phase of the case, prosecutors “remained completely silent and poker-faced regarding their agreement to a lesser punishment and tacitly acquiesced to the harsh sentence terms: 41 months and restitution and fines of well over a quarter of a million dollars.”
In an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel Friday, Douglas MacKinnon claims the real “Sputnik moment” the president should have mentioned in his State of the Union speech is China’s space program. Claiming that President Obama “has basically ended our human spaceflight program”, MacKinnon claims that “one nation above all is celebrating the demise of our human-spaceflight program: the People’s Republic of China” because it means “their military-controlled space program could soon have a free hand from the Earth to the moon.” Those claims, and the logic backing them, are tenuous at best in the op-ed, as among other things, he ignores the US national security space efforts that are largely unaffected by end of the shuttle program.
Mr. MacKinnon’s claims just feed into an argument that I have made over on nasaspaceflight.com a few times. Basically, logic, reason and facts all have very little if anything to do with the political discourse. What are important are perceptions and hysterical mass-stampedes.
FWIW, I wonder if this and other similar comments can be seen as attempting to drum up support for the proposed part-commercialisation of the SSP by United Space Alliance as being the one and only commercial crew program until Orion is flying. Something along the lines of “let’s stick with what we know rather than trust these amateur rocket geeks! If we don’t the Chinese will take over the universe!!!”
Obama’s use of ‘Spunik moment’ in the SOTU has been widely criticized as incongruous on many levels, from his puzzling vision for NASA to his views for the role of government in business. The OC op-ed is one good example. Here is another.
FWIW, I wonder if this and other similar comments can be seen as attempting to drum up support for the proposed part-commercialisation of the SSP by United Space Alliance as being the one and only commercial crew program until Orion is flying.
Plausible theory, especially with a GOPer House and a nearly split Senate who is looking for a way to keep the STS zombie walking and the costs cheap.
Also they can stretch out SLS deployment into >2020.
It is amazing how much MacKinnon doesn’t know about the era of sputnik, Einsenhower and spending.
“With the popular Eisenhower suddenly vulnerable, Democrats pounced. Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson charged that the Soviets “will be dropping bombs on us from space like kids dropping rocks onto cars from freeway overpasses.” Even Republicans worried; to bolster defense, New York Senator Jacob Javits urged “a crash program.”
Eisenhower disagreed. A five-star general, he knew the Pentagon’s hunger for weapons and viewed excessive defense spending as wasteful. General Andrew Goodpaster, a top Eisenhower aide, said that the president maintained America’s military strength “through all of this really tremendous flood of publicity and proposals by military groups, especially for crash programs.”
To Eisenhower, the satellite’s real threat was its potential to panic Americans and make them “further exercised by the politicization of this in Congress and in the media,” Goodpaster recalled. Eisenhower delivered two television addresses reassuring Americans about their strength in science and national defense. Cautioning against trying “to ride off in all directions at once,” he urged “selectivity in national expenditures of all kinds.”
Eisenhower often mentioned the “long pull.” He predicted a half-century-long Cold War that America’s economic strength would enable it to win. Husbanding resources and balancing the budget would be crucial because the nation “cannot continue to prove to the world that we cannot and will not pay our debts as we go along….”
After leaving office, Eisenhower privately criticized President John Kennedy’s call to land men on the moon within a decade. Although Eisenhower created NASA and supported space initiatives, he opposed challenging the Soviets to a “race†and staking America’s prestige and resources on an expensive “stunt.” Were he alive today, Eisenhower likely would reject talk of outdoing the Russians with a manned Mars mission or other budget-busting ventures. “
http://hnn.us/articles/43173.html
In this memo on sputnik it relates how the Soviet Union did us a favor by being the first country to launch a satellite.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sputnik-memo/
The Washington Times article says,
Specifically, the [Republican Senators] ask what impact the code of conduct would have on “the research and development, testing and deployment of a kinetic defensive system in outer space that is capable of defeating an anti-satellite weapon, such as the one tested by the People’s Republic of China in 2007.â€
Any idea what they’re talking about? There was some discussion of defensive satellites — essentially armed escort satellites — back in the late 1980s, but AFAIK those were for use against co-orbital ASATs. And, in any event, haven’t been much discussed, let alone put into development, in recent times.
Mr. MacKinnon is guilty of the usual historical miscomprehension. That the “Sputnik moment” was about space. It wasn’t. It was about a battle for technological competitiveness, and just happened then to be being played out in space. It was about seeing a little ball go over your head, knowing that those who put that little ball there could put warheads there as well. MacKinnon makes the economically pathetic argument that the “ultimate threat to our national security” is in Chinese efforts to prove their capabilities in space. What universe is he living in? It is also a staggering misconception on his part that our national dependence on satellites or our ability to develop or defend them has anything to do with NASA, or human space flight. An odd claim by someone who was once a spokesman for the DoD, and a policy pundit for the BMDO.
He’s right about one thing. Sputnik was a “historical prop” in Obama’s speech. In the same way as it was in Eisenhower’s.
“Kinetic defensive system in outer space” is pretty clear; “kinetic” no longer has value as an obfuscatory euphemism. So, it would appear that some Republican senators, at least, are still talking about armed escort satellites.
Whether these are the old armed escort satellite proposals, that would only be useful against the “parasite microsatellites” the Chinese are not-very-credibly rumored to have, or a new sort of armed escort satellite that could stop a direct-ascent ASAT (technically possible but challenging), only the senators know. And that may be crediting them with more understanding than they actually possess.
Whether there’s anything more to it than talk, also unknown. This is the sort of program that wouldn’t get talked about much until deployment and/or testing.
I love it when typos provide a smile. Did the Washington Times report on a “code fo conduct�
Wha dey want to do dat fo?
Vladislaw wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 9:24 am
“It is amazing how much MacKinnon doesn’t know about the era of sputnik, Einsenhower and spending.”
Very next sentence after where your (lengthy) quote left off:
“Yet Eisenhower probably would back more limited NASA projects such as the space shuttle.”
I guess that means you are calling for a resumption of the Shuttle Program, right?
Eisenhower was an excellent General (in terms of managing the tacitly brilliant Patton and Montgomery – translation he managed to keep them fighting the Nazis instead of each other), but he was no space visionary. Using him as your Rosetta Stone for what space policy should be is questionable at best.
My apologies, Bennett. The typo has been corrected.
And that may be crediting them with more understanding than they actually possess.
Which does raise the question of who provided them with the words they were supposed to say. The Heritage Foundation comes to mind — does it have some milspace proponent who has been talking about DSATs?
The Heritage Foundation comes to mind
A quick bit of googling reminds me that HF has been enthusiastic about Brilliant Pebbles for quite a while. And, since the SC-19 direct ascent ASAT is allegedly derived from a ballistic missile and would have similar flight characteristics, I’m led to speculate that what the Senators are currently being caused to talk about is a foot in the door for the holy grail of space-based BMD.
“Claiming that President Obama “has basically ended our human spaceflight program”
Let’s stay on message here, and not get distracted by other issues: the Utah delegation has basically ended our human spaceflight program.
That’s a fact, and the only hope for interrupting their plan is to go with Direct immediately.
E.P. Grondine wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
““Claiming that President Obama “has basically ended our human spaceflight program†Let’s stay on message here, and not get distracted by other issues”
If this site has a message would someone post the “mission statement” and the “style book” so we can all get with the program.
Fearless Leader wrote My apologies, Bennett. The typo has been corrected.”
Dang, now I feel like a rat for noticing.
For Eisenhower and rockets and space policy, see volumes 3 and 4 of my History of Cosmonautics.
Pop Quiz: anyone here know who Trevor Gardner was, what he did, and why he did it?
One of my regrets as concerns my history was not being able to interview General Goodpasteur before he passed on; the other was not being able to chat with Scott Crossfield – oh well.
In the discussion of ABM, I think that the Russian-US arms reductions that have occured have lowered the threat below the leakage rate of any ABM system.
I’ve had a stroke so I am reluctant to comment on current military matters. But China’s leadership has asked for arms control limitations; we will have to see what they propose. My thinking is that arms limitation treaties will have to involve not only China, but Russia and the EU as well.
As regards China, we can all blame Thiokol and the Utah delegation for the formidable economic competition in space markets that China will present shortly. And I suppose the Heritage Foundation does not like the aviation machinists union.
E.P. Grondine wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
“For Eisenhower and rockets and space policy, see volumes 3 and 4 of my History of Cosmonautics.”
Sorry to hear about your medical problems, hope all goes well for you.
Serious question, do you have links (or directions) to your “History of Cosmonautics”?
” “Yet Eisenhower probably would back more limited NASA projects such as the space shuttle.â€
I guess that means you are calling for a resumption of the Shuttle Program, right?”
President Eisenhower was a hardcore budget hawk and was against alot of military spending. The shuttle was closed on the usefulness for the military, and the military added a lot of costs to the shuttle for things like the 700 mile cross range that was never used. I do not think President Eisenhower would have went with the STS as it was built.
I believe he would have funded something like the Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar or the HL-20 Personnel Launch System, maybe even the HL-42 (My personal favorite)
But I very highly doubt he would have funded the current shuttle.
Joe wrote:
“Eisenhower was an excellent General (in terms of managing the tacitly brilliant Patton and Montgomery – translation he managed to keep them fighting the Nazis instead of each other), but he was no space visionary. Using him as your Rosetta Stone for what space policy should be is questionable at best.”
Obviously you didn’t read the article by Douglas MacKinnon. My response said nothing about today’s space policy debate, it was in response to what he wrote about President Eisenhower:
“If the president and his speechwriters truly wanted to draw the proper lesson from the launch of Sputnik by the Soviets in 1957, he would have reminded a new generation of Americans that President Eisenhower immediately understood the implications of that tiny satellite in orbit. That if the Soviets could launch a small satellite, they could also launch a nuclear warhead.
Less than a year after Sputnik made orbit, Eisenhower created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”
The Eisenhower Administration looked at the launch, of Sputnik, as a mistake by the Soviet Union and a space policy coup for the United States as the memo pointed out.
“He went on to add that the Russians have in fact done us a good turn, unintentionally, in establishing the concept of freedom of international space” (page 2 of the memo)
MacKinnon leads you to the false conclusion that President Eisenhower was all hands on deck for whatever crash programs were suggested by the military or congress and willing to fund them when in fact it was the exact opposite.
MacKinnon writes that once President Eisenhower realized that the Soviet Union could drop nukes on us he “quickly” creates a civilian agency, NASA, to what? Stop the military action of launching nukes by the Russians? It was set up with under civilian control and not the military and President Eisenhower had privately spoken out against President Kennedy’s challenge to land a man on the moon. So much for using President Eisenhower as pro human spaceflight and why the current Obama Administration is getting it all wrong.
Now where you would get from that it was a “rosetta stone” for the current space policy debate is, to quote Robert G. Oler “goofy”.
NASA was created because one cause for Sputnik launching before Vanguard was that Vanguard was given a low priority at Cape Canaveral. At the time, military rockets and research were given higher priority. Vanguard was a nominally civilian rocket launching a scientific payload as part of the International Geophysical Year.
The United States didn’t want to be viewed as going to space for military reasons, which was why the White House selected the Navy’s Vanguard proposal instead of the Army’s Project Orbiter which would have used a modified Jupiter rocket. Jupiter was a medium range ballistic missile intended to launch nuclear weapons. Vanguard was a derivative of the Navy’s Viking rocket which was used for sounding tests (i.e. weather and other scientific tests).
The formation of NASA was in response to a Congressional investigation into why the Russians were first. The issue of civilian rockets not having priority in a military program was one big problem. So NASA was created to solve the problem.
It had nothing to do with “vision” or “crash” programs. It was to separate a nominally civilian space program from a military space program.
“the Utah delegation has basically ended our human spaceflight program.
That’s a fact, and the only hope for interrupting their plan is to go with Direct immediately.”
Could you explain that Mr. Grondine? I thought Direct used SRB’s. I thought the whole Utah thing was about SRB’s?
As for Direct immediately, I was rather hoping for Sidemount even more immediately.
“Obviously you didn’t read the article by Douglas MacKinnon. My response said nothing about today’s space policy debate, it was in response to what he wrote about President Eisenhower:
“If the president and his speechwriters truly wanted to draw the proper lesson from the launch of Sputnik by the Soviets in 1957, he would have reminded a new generation of Americans that President Eisenhower immediately understood the implications of that tiny satellite in orbit. That if the Soviets could launch a small satellite, they could also launch a nuclear warhead.
Less than a year after Sputnik made orbit, Eisenhower created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.â€
The Eisenhower Administration looked at the launch, of Sputnik, as a mistake by the Soviet Union and a space policy coup for the United States as the memo pointed out.â€
First of all let me (sadly) say I was about to make a friendly reply to your original post before you super ceded it with this (would have been interesting discussing shuttle alternatives). Yes I read the MacKinnon article and nothing on page two of the linked memo of the article debunks what MacKinnon said
“He went on to add that the Russians have in fact done us a good turn, unintentionally, in establishing the concept of freedom of international space†(page 2 of the memo)â€
This quote (in context) is saying that the Russian launch would OK similar American launches. You left out (why – can only be wondered) the last half of the sentence “—this seems to be accepted as orbital space in which the missile is making inoffensive passageâ€.
“MacKinnon leads you to the false conclusion that President Eisenhower was all hands on deck for whatever crash programs were suggested by the military or congress and willing to fund them when in fact it was the exact opposite.â€
In fact the programs for military ICBMs were already underway (part of Eisenhower’s frustration because the Democrats new that) never the less he went on accelerate them and the NASA HSF program as well (in spite of his generational conviction that HSF was ‘Buck Rogers†stuff).
Now where you would get from that it was a “rosetta stone†for the current space policy debate is, to quote Robert G. Oler “goofyâ€.
If Robert Oler thinks I am “goofyâ€, think I will put it in my biography.
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.
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/innovation/strategy/catalyze
after it opens with the State of the Union Sputnik reference:
“The 21st century brings several critical areas – including energy, bio- and nanotechnology, space capabilities, health care, and education – where the demand for breakthroughs is clear.
…
Develop breakthrough space capabilities and applications
Space technologies warn us of natural disasters, enable worldwide communications, facilitate global commerce, enhance our global navigation and position location capabilities, and contribute to our national security. The President is committed to continuing U.S. leadership in this arena by strengthening our space-related science and technology R&D initiatives, enhancing mutually beneficial international cooperation efforts, improving the state of the U.S. space industrial base, and taking steps to enable a robust, innovative, and competitive commercial space sector.
The Administration is dedicated to developing the next generation of space vehicles and innovative uses of the International Space Station (ISS) by working with the private sector to expand American industry’s role. The Administration is also committed to advancing U.S. capabilities in other space sectors, including a new generation of global positioning satellites and services that allow advanced navigation and timing applications, which can be a platform for further innovation in many sectors, including agriculture, communications, air travel, and highway safety. The Administration will also continue and improve a broad array of programs of space-based observation, research, and analysis of the Earth’s land, oceans, and atmosphere.”
red wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 7:44 am
“Interesting” that there is no reference at all to any BEO activities. I wonder if that is an “oversite” or intentional.
Hi Joe- you’ll have to ask around right now
Hi Virgil – The Utah delegation wanted and wants to move Thiokol into the medium large launch market with the 5 seg. Thiokol got $10,000,000,000, and wants another $3,000,000,000, and the 5 seg operational cost is very high.
The 4 segs for Direct are ready to go.
Joe wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 8:31 am
“Interesting†that there is no reference at all to any BEO activities. I wonder if that is an “oversite†or intentional.”
I think that is consistent with their view that NASA needs to build out space technology & transportation infrastructure further before BEO missions can be affordable enough to realistically commit to.
While they have promoted a broad vision of where the Nation could go some day with the infrastructure they are promoting, the Administration has effectively said that the failure of the Constellation program shows us we’re not ready to go BEO in a sustained fashion yet. And I would agree with that.
Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were fairly astute regarding space. I agree that Eisenhower was happy to have space proven to be outside national borders and thus available for intelligence flights. Conversely, the moon race was initiated intentionally by Kennedy as a way of diverting the ideological competition between the US and the USSR away from the race in nuclear arms, which could well have destroyed the world.
But today the situation is different. China has no interest in a race with the US. If they lost, they would look foolish; if they won, they would irritate their biggest customer. China would prefer to be invited to join the ISS program to demonstrate that they are a member of the club of world leaders.
Perhaps the most serious problem we face is the politicizing of the space program. Many of the Republicans who work at KSC are clamoring for more tax cuts but also blaming Obama for their potential job losses, and even for the cancellation of the Shuttle, which was announced in 2005. There’s no willingness at all to consider that their salaries are paid by government spending that requires taxes. Somehow they believe Constellation would fly on even if the NASA budget is cut to $16 B (from Obama’s request of $19 B) if only there were a Republican in the white house. All their problems are blamed on “Obamaspace” while the incredible inefficiency and cost of Constellation and its lack of any goals that would actually make a profit is ignored.
“In fact the programs for military ICBMs were already underway (part of Eisenhower’s frustration because the Democrats new that) never the less he went on accelerate them”
Yes but President Eisenhower was not in favor of increased funding for them, when he first took office he wanted to cut spending for ICBM’s. After the launch of Sputnik it wasn’t Eisenhower who was immediatly calling for a crash program for ICBM’s.
As I already posted:
“Eisenhower disagreed. A five-star general, he knew the Pentagon’s hunger for weapons and viewed excessive defense spending as wasteful. General Andrew Goodpaster, a top Eisenhower aide, said that the president maintained America’s military strength “through all of this really tremendous flood of publicity and proposals by military groups, especially for crash programs.â€
To Eisenhower, the satellite’s real threat was its potential to panic Americans and make them “further exercised by the politicization of this in Congress and in the media,†Goodpaster recalled. Eisenhower delivered two television addresses reassuring Americans about their strength in science and national defense. Cautioning against trying “to ride off in all directions at once,†he urged “selectivity in national expenditures of all kinds.†“
President Eisenhower expressly said not to ride off in all directions and fund every crash program.
MacKinnin tries to paint a picture that it is was President Eisenhower as the catalyst for this funding increase. It was political pressure put upon him that moved him to agree with the increased funding.
MacKinnin then says:
“Unfortunately, for Obama and his writers to properly acknowledge the meaning of Sputnik would mean they would also have to draw unwanted attention to the fact that President Obama has basically ended our human spaceflight program.”
Now if President Obama wanted to fund, in his 2011 NASA budget, 6 billion dollars over 5 years to create MULTIPLE domestic human launch services companies to service NASA’s needs to put astronauts into space how is that equate him basically ending human spaceflight?
How can he use President Eisenhower as a foil to show how a President should be viewing human spaceflight when in fact that President wasn’t all that prospace in general or human spaceflight in particular.
If you agree with MacKinnin that President Obama is trying to end domestic human space by increasing NASA’s budget, extending America presence in space by funding the ISS to 2020 and funding multiple domestic human launch companies and that President Obama should be more like President Eisenhower on space issues then I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Joe wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 8:31 am
““Interesting†that there is no reference at all to any BEO activities. I wonder if that is an “oversite†or intentional.â€
I think that is consistent with their view that NASA needs to build out space technology & transportation infrastructure further before BEO missions can be affordable enough to realistically commit to. While they have promoted a broad vision of where the Nation could go some day with the infrastructure they are promoting, the Administration has effectively said that the failure of the Constellation program shows us we’re not ready to go BEO in a sustained fashion yet. And I would agree with that.”
By which you mean you think it is intentional, so we can now kiss any attempt at BEO Activities goodby for the forseeable future.
“While they have promoted a broad vision of where the Nation could go some dayâ€.
A couple of interesting questions: (1) Where do they feel the nation “could go†(besides the euphmistic everywhere)? (2) When is “some day†(10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, or perhaps never)?
It was never in the cards in the first place.
5-7 years, manned GEO
7-10, manned Lunar Orbit
10+, Lunar surface or other deep space destinations, dependent upon technology invested in
Ferris Valyn wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
“It was never in the cards in the first place.”
Whose cards, yours?
“5-7 years, manned GEO
7-10, manned Lunar Orbit
10+, Lunar surface or other deep space destinations, dependent upon technology invested in”
Nice numbers, but based on what? Certainely the Administration has said nothing like that (at least on the record). The closest it has come is a possible asteroid mission some time after 2025 and even that is left out of this most recent “pronuncementâ€.
Joe wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
I’ll echo the comments of Ferris Valyn. Plus, Obama has spoken many times about what he hopes NASA is able to do in the future, such as visiting an asteroid and eventually going to Mars. He will have no direct effect over those initiatives, since even if he gets a second term, they won’t happen until well past his exit from office.
Instead, Obama and Bolden are focused on the basic technology and transportation infrastructure needed to go anywhere. Check out the FY 2011 Budget Overview they submitted to Congress, and which Congress did generally follow (http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html).
One of the basic issues revolves around the question of government-run crew transportation versus commercial crew transport. Congress has already weighed in on this, and mandated that commercial systems be used, but they clouded the issue budget-wise by stating that the MPCV be used as a backup. While that seems reasonable, it is wrong for two reasons:
1. The MPCV does not have an exploration mission at this time, so even when it is built, all it will be able to do is circle the Earth for short trips, so it’s money spent too early. Besides, I think capsules as exploration vehicles will be quickly eclipsed by true space-only exploration vehicles, at which point capsules become lifeboats (like Soyuz) and basic transport to/from – the MPCV will be like a gold-plated toilet in that case.
2. With far less money than the MPCV will use, NASA could fund two or more commercial capsule systems. The SpaceX Dragon will have more than 10 cargo flights experience before any crew testing will be needed, and Boeing could build their CST-100 and launch it on an Atlas V. That would provide redundancy, and backup in case one provider is running behind. Simple capsules can also be fielded far faster than the MPCV, which still doesn’t have solid specs.
“By which you mean you think it is intentional, so we can now kiss any attempt at BEO Activities goodby for the forseeable future.”
The last estimate for when Constellation was going to land someone on the Moon was around 2035, and that’s if the schedule didn’t slip any further. So that would mean no BEO for at least 25 years, mainly because of cost and schedule issues with Ares I/Orion & Ares V (the EDS and Altair were not started yet).
Replacing Ares I/Orion with commercial crew means that NASA only needs to exercise a contract line-item to get to space, instead of Congress having to fund a new program. That reduces the lead time for any BEO program, so Congress can spend less money to achieve the same result. And the end result will be much quicker BEO exploration than Constellation could both do & afford.
My $0.02
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
“Plus, Obama has spoken many times about what he hopes NASA is able to do in the future, such as visiting an asteroid and eventually going to Mars.â€
I hate to say this because it is just going to lead to another Dem vs. Rep fight (which I could care less about), but to the best of my knowledge Obama has spoken on the subject precisely once (the Florida speach), where are all these other “many times�
“Instead, Obama and Bolden are focused on the basic technology and transportation infrastructure needed to go anywhere. Check out the FY 2011 Budget Overview they submitted to Congress, and which Congress did generally followâ€
Three questions: (1) Where is “anywhereâ€, (2) If the administration is so sold on this “basic technology and transportation infrastructure†why did they leave it entirely out of this most recent pronouncement (which is supposed to be about technological innovations to “win the futureâ€)? No references to BEO Tec Dev, Flag Ship Demonstrations, nothing.
“The last estimate for when Constellation was going to land someone on the Moon was around 2035, and that’s if the schedule didn’t slip any further. So that would mean no BEO for at least 25 years, mainly because of cost and schedule issues with Ares I/Orion & Ares V (the EDS and Altair were not started yet).â€
That is what the Augustine Commission said about the baseline Constellation System Architecture (given what the curremt administration was not willing to spend on it), but that is not what is currently at issue so why keep repeating that?
Joe
The US government’s cards.
Doing BEO spaceflight requires a certain level of technology, and a certain level of funding. If we had anti-gravity, odds are pretty good we could, relatively cheaply, go to the moon. Conversely, going to the moon was very expensive during Apollo, because that was the tech we had available. Now, you can increase both the tech and money you have if you lengthen your timeframe, but at somepopint the timeframe becomes too long to be realistic (sure we can wait 100 years, but really…)
There was a possiblity (I want to stress it was only a possiblity) that when VSE was first announced, and O’keefe was working on the various proposals being offerred (I don’t remember what they were called – my computer is in the shop, and so I can’t look it up), there was a chance that the budget, time, and tech options could have aligned for this to happen. The instant Constellation was chosen, I submit, that chance was lost, because NASA didn’t get the budget it needed to make Constellation work in a timely fashion. Yes, if NASA had gotten double its budget, Constellation could’ve become possible, but that was not in the cards. This has been obvious since 2006.
Certainly they have – its called the FY2011 budget. What you are looking for is someone saying “we are going to do X, Y, and Z, on year a, b, and c.” That I grant did not, and has not happened. But to me, thats practically worthless. Bush did that, and the budget never materialized.
What the Obama administration did was offer up the money needed to develop the tech that allowed for the developing the hardware, and it specified EXACTLY the tech you need for BEO spaceflight to happen in a sustainable fashion. I’ll give you a great example…
With only 3 things from the FY2011 budget, we can do Deep Space Missions that include GEO and Lunar Orbit missions – Commercial Crew, Orion, and Delta IV Heavy (not an uprated version, but like the one that has just flown)
The Deep-Space version of Orion is too heavy to be launched manned on Delta IV heavy, (because the LAS puts it over budget). Take it off, and you can do GEO & Lunar orbit with Orion, but NASA isn’t going to launch astronauts that way. So the solution is simple – launch Orion unmanned on the Delta IV Heavy, and then follow it up with a manned launch of a Dragon/Dreamchaser/CST-100 up to dock with it – astronauts transfer over, and off you go to GEO or Lunar orbit. Now, not only do you have Deep Spaceflights going on, you’ve created a new market for the Commercial Crew vehicles (in addition to ISS), and you don’t need a massive budget increase for NASA. (I will grant, this isn’t the most cost-effective option, but it is a realistic proposal based on budgets and tech)
You factor in the other tech that was included in the 2011 budget, and you end up with the technology & budget needed to do some very cool missions in a reasonable timeframe. Because you end up with precisely what Coastal Ron talked about.
So, yes, the administration endorsed BEO on the record.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 12:58 am
“The instant Constellation was chosen, I submit, that chance was lost, because NASA didn’t get the budget it needed to make Constellation work in a timely fashion. Yes, if NASA had gotten double its budget, Constellation could’ve become possible, but that was not in the cards. This has been obvious since 2006.â€
The much quoted Augustine Commission said Constellation could be implemented for an additional $3 billion a year. I agree there was no way the current or previous administration was going to do that, but it is a long way from doubling NASA’s budget.
“Certainly they have – its called the FY2011 budget. What you are looking for is someone saying “we are going to do X, Y, and Z, on year a, b, and c.†That I grant did not, and has not happened. But to me, thats practically worthless. Bush did that, and the budget never materialized.â€
So the goals/timelines you presented are yours, not the administrations. Fair enough that is exactly what I was asking.
“With only 3 things from the FY2011 budget, we can do Deep Space Missions that include GEO and Lunar Orbit missions – Commercial Crew, Orion, and Delta IV Heavy (not an uprated version, but like the one that has just flown)
The Deep-Space version of Orion is too heavy to be launched manned on Delta IV heavy, (because the LAS puts it over budget). Take it off, and you can do GEO & Lunar orbit with Orion, but NASA isn’t going to launch astronauts that way. So the solution is simple – launch Orion unmanned on the Delta IV Heavy, and then follow it up with a manned launch of a Dragon/Dreamchaser/CST-100 up to dock with it – astronauts transfer over, and off you go to GEO or Lunar orbit. Now, not only do you have Deep Spaceflights going on, you’ve created a new market for the Commercial Crew vehicles (in addition to ISS), and you don’t need a massive budget increase for NASA. (I will grant, this isn’t the most cost-effective option, but it is a realistic proposal based on budgets and tech)
You factor in the other tech that was included in the 2011 budget, and you end up with the technology & budget needed to do some very cool missions in a reasonable timeframe. Because you end up with precisely what Coastal Ron talked about.â€
An interesting concept, but it is yours not the administrations. If they ever propose such a thing, I will “sit up and take noticeâ€, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
“So, yes, the administration endorsed BEO on the record.â€
I will agree with that statement when and if the administration actually proposes something like you describe above, but like I said but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
They said that you would need $3 Billion more to impliment it in a reasonable fashion. However, you would still end up with slipped launch dates in that proposal. To have Constellation deliver on its original timeframe, you would need to double the HSF budget. And it was just the HSF budget, not the entire budget.
Yes, they did – its called the FY2011 budget. They just didn’t finish the story, since what I am talking about would HAVE to take place beyond the 5 year timeframe it offerred. In effect, they showed NASA doing project Gemini, but didn’t show the project Apollo (yet)
Lets cut to the chase of the matter – Is it your contention that the Obama administration would invest substantial money into technology that would lower the cost of BEO spaceflight (to a point that that BEO spaceflight could take place under the current budget levels without going out to infinity) and then would not use it?
Cause thats what it looks like from my perspective, and I gotta say, that seems VERY unlikely.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
“The much quoted Augustine Commission said Constellation could be implemented for an additional $3 billion a year. I agree there was no way the current or previous administration was going to do that, but it is a long way from doubling NASA’s budget.
“To have Constellation deliver on its original timeframe, you would need to double the HSF budget.â€
Did the Commission say that or are you saying it?
“An interesting concept, but it is yours not the administrations. If they ever propose such a thing, I will “sit up and take noticeâ€, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Yes, they did – its called the FY2011 budget. They just didn’t finish the story, since what I am talking about would HAVE to take place beyond the 5 year timeframe it offerred. In effect, they showed NASA doing project Gemini, but didn’t show the project Apollo (yet)â€
I have read the budget carefully; nowhere did they propose anything like what you are talking about. You say that would “HAVE to take placeâ€, but how can you possibly know that?
“Lets cut to the chase of the matter – Is it your contention that the Obama administration would invest substantial money into technology that would lower the cost of BEO spaceflight (to a point that that BEO spaceflight could take place under the current budget levels without going out to infinity) and then would not use it?
Cause thats what it looks like from my perspective, and I gotta say, that seems VERY unlikely.â€
No, it is my contention that, given the fact that they left any reference at all out of their backup material to the State of the Union Speech – that was supposed to be about “winning the futureâ€- to the BEO research, No Flag Ship Demonstrations, no nothing, while talking a lot about supporting the “Commercial†development and NASA involvement in Climate Monitoring, they may not be taking the BEO research very seriously.
Look, this heading towards another “flame war†and I really find those totally useless; so let’s just let this drop before the pointless name calling begins. We will all find out what will eventually happen without slandering each other.
I echo & second that sentiment, brought up in the opening comment for this thread: Let’s NOT trust these ‘amateur rocket geeks’ to jump start our space future!! The flotilla of commercial space vehicles that they are proposing to build, will NOT help us one iota, in terms of breaking orbit, and venturing beyond LEO. Deep space is a VERY different ball game! A ‘space taxi’ capsule by its very nature, is incapable of doing a Lunar orbital mission (or even a Lunar flyby, on a free-return flight-path). Orion as a deep-space-mission craft DEFINITELY should be built! The commercial people are going to construct very inferior vehicles, which are ONLY suited for LEO. By the way, I am SO sick & tired of hearing that same old ridiculous statement, that ‘Constellation would’ve taken until 2035 to have reached the Moon'; Look boys: IF Constellation would’ve been properly funded, it could’ve reached the Moon by 2020, hands down! The powers that be simply had a stupid phobia about not returning to Luna. Ironically, you’d likely need a test flight into Lunar orbit, in order to test the deep-space viability of any would-be manned asteroid-going craft! [You CANNOT orbit an NEO—-you’d have to match its solar orbit velocity; and you CAN’T do a free-return trajectory to an NEO—-without greatly increasing your interplanetary flight time.] In short, crewed NEO missions in absence of new Lunar ones, is an absurd & wacko folly! Asteroids should be visited in conjunction with a serious Lunar Return, NOT as a by-itself venture!
“has basically ended our human spaceflight programâ€
Casual dishonesty, not a good trait.
“The 4 segs for Direct are ready to go.”
Thank you for the clarification EP. They are ready for Sidemount also. I do not understand why the Direct crowd does not go with Sidemount instead and save the inline development for the next step- a 130+ ton HLV. And if they spent the money on the 5-segment, they should put them on Sidemount block 2 and on the bigger HLV down the road. IMO.
“-commercial space vehicles that they are proposing to build, will NOT help us one iota, in terms of breaking orbit, and venturing beyond LEO. Deep space is a VERY different ball game”
I agree with Chris.
I will agree with that statement when and if the administration actually proposes something like you describe above, but like I said but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
I don’t understand why you are so focused on what the administration says. Everything this administration says has an expiration date, and there’s a very good chance that it will be gone two years from now. The administration doesn’t give a damn about human spaceflight, which is a good thing, because if it did, it wouldn’t trust it to private enterprise. The only important thing is the actual policy, not speeches.
The 2011 budget would have gotten us a lot closer to the moon a lot sooner and a lot more sustainably than Constellation would have. Even the NASA authorization bill, as awful as it is, will do so, if actually funded. What we have to now (and it will be hard, given that the porkers have been put in charge of the committees) is getting a useful appropriations bill passed this year that finally allows them to stop wasting money on Constellation.
Rand Simberg wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“Everything this administration says has an expiration date, and there’s a very good chance that it will be gone two years from now.â€
OK, grant you the first statement is true and the second one is at least possible (see we are all playing nicely together).
“The administration doesn’t give a damn about human spaceflight, which is a good thing, because if it did, it wouldn’t trust it to private enterprise. The only important thing is the actual policy, not speeches.â€
There is where you lose me (and I mean that literally not as sarcasm). If the administration is not serious about its policy (as you seem to be saying) then what is it policy but “speeches†it has no intention of backing up?
“The 2011 budget would have gotten us a lot closer to the moon a lot sooner and a lot more sustainably than Constellation would have. Even the NASA authorization bill, as awful as it is, will do so, if actually funded. What we have to now (and it will be hard, given that the porkers have been put in charge of the committees) is getting a useful appropriations bill passed this year that finally allows them to stop wasting money on Constellation.â€
That might (or might not) be true if the administration were sincere about their intentions, but if they are not then the FY 2011 budget is nothing but a bunch of empty promises whose (to use your phraseology) “expiration date†expired before they were ever made.
There is where you lose me (and I mean that literally not as sarcasm). If the administration is not serious about its policy (as you seem to be saying) then what is it policy but “speeches†it has no intention of backing up?
Policy is budget requests. Not speeches. That’s why it’s not really the policy of this administration to use NASA to increase Muslim self esteem, and why it really was the policy to invest in commercial crew and new technologies to allow the sustainable development of space.
Joe
I don’t know if that made it into the final report. However, the committee did say as much during their deliberations (Look on Sally’s charts, from the last public meeting, you’ll see a graph that represents this, and if you watch it, it gets said then).
As for the rest of what you said, Rand hit the nail on the head
If I can expand on it slightly
The reason there is an experiation date is cause no administration can last more than 8 years, max.
While I disagree with Rand about not giving a damn about HSF, or trusting private enterprise, there is a larger point – this is not a major issue for the White House. No doubt it gets discussed, but the odds are very good that the total time the White House spends on NASA HSF is quite small compared to various other issues. That said, its not a question of “being serious” – its a question of priorities, and are there other priorities that take precident over this? I submit that in terms of making the tech work, and the money they were talking about spending, no there wasn’t. This is a niche issue that we space advocates must come to terms with, and realize where it falls.
So, looking at how and where they are budgeting & spending money is much more important than them giving a Kennedy style speech. I can live without the speech – but I have to have money to go to space.
Its no bucks, no buck rogers
Not no space speech, no spaceflight
Chris Castro,
So, is it your contention, that any flight to BEO MUST start from earth’s surface? You can’t do the missions by being launched from earth to LEO, and rendevous & dock to a deep spacecraft that will take you to the moon or Mars or elsewhere?
As for “If Constellation would’ve been properlyl funded” – take a shot at doing some alternative history. Just make certain you deal with the fact that Bush was underfunding it. Make certain to advertise your book here at spacepolitics
“Let’s NOT trust these ‘amateur rocket geeks’ to jump start our space future!!”
Who are you referring to? Commercial space companies included ULA, Boeing and OSC. The same ones NASA would use. Do they construct inferior vehicles for NASA?
“I am SO sick & tired of hearing that same old ridiculous statement, that ‘Constellation would’ve taken until 2035 to have reached the Moon’; Look boys: IF Constellation would’ve been properly funded, ”
Look “Chris”, I am going to say it real slow so you can understand.
I am SO sick & tired of hearing people like you say Constellation would have worked with more money. That was the problem, it was too expensive. The end does not justify the means. Constellation chose a bad architecture that would have cost more than the shuttle and ISS combined to operate.
Rand Simberg wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“Policy is budget requests. Not speeches. That’s why it’s not really the policy of this administration to use NASA to increase Muslim self esteem, and why it really was the policy to invest in commercial crew and new technologies to allow the sustainable development of space.â€
Hi Rand. As I recall we had a long discussion (on your website) about the FY 2011 Budget. Do not panic I am not suggesting we repeat it :). The only new information since we beat the subject unconscious is in the link red provided above. It appears to be a WH “backup†to the State of the Union speech theme of “winning the futureâ€. There is actually a section in it devoted Space. Many things are mentioned including support for “Commercial Space†and the ISS. Most of the verbiage is allocated Environmental Monitoring, GPS and that sort of applications stuff.
What is missing entirely is reference to any BEO research. Not specific missions research. No “Flagship Demonstrationâ€, nothing.
That does not exactly inspire confidence (in me at least) as to the level of commitment t the administration has to BEO Tec Dev.
Joe
You can thank Congress and the NASA 2010 authorizaiton act for that. That killed the flagship demos and the like
Joe wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 9:58 am
“That does not exactly inspire confidence (in me at least) as to the level of commitment t the administration has to BEO Tec Dev.”
Just out of curiosity, outside of the recent historical blip called Constellation, which was supposed to start addressing one part of the many tasks laid out in the VSE, have you had the same level of frustration with the other Administrations that have come since Apollo? Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and even the luke warm support of Bush 43?
I would agree that there are no bold missions proposed currently, but if all of the programs in the new NASA Authorization Act come to fruition, that would provide us with a big step towards expanding into space, and provide a more solid foundation towards future bold missions.
I guess I look at it this way – we still have a lot of technology and infrastructure that we need to develop before we can sustain a permanent presence outside of LEO, and since we’re lacking the funds and the imperative for BEO anyways, we might as well work on increasing our capabilities and lowering the future costs to live in space. And as a reminder, these tasks are part of the VSE too, in case the VSE holds any sway with you.
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Joe wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 9:58 am
“Just out of curiosity, outside of the recent historical blip called Constellation, which was supposed to start addressing one part of the many tasks laid out in the VSE, have you had the same level of frustration with the other Administrations that have come since Apollo? Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and even the luke warm support of Bush 43?â€
Just to answer you, I am going to attempt to avoid getting into discussions that appear to me intended to start hostile politically oriented discussions. We have one President at a time and it is currently Obama. Good luck finding somebody to fight with.
“You can’t do the missions by being launched from earth to LEO, and rendevous & dock to a deep spacecraft that will take you to the moon or Mars or elsewhere?”
That was the plan with Constellation. That is the plan with Sidemount missions. It will work. What will not work is the absurd fuel depot schemes and inferior lift vehicles putting together spacecraft in orbit. Docking with an EDS is one thing- building tinker toys that will actually fly is another. Storing liquid hydrogen in space for long periods and transferring it is a zero experience technology. Any kind of reusable spacecraft is going to need maintenance and there are no hangars in space. Do not even compare them to satellites that fly until they fail.
Joe wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
“Just to answer you, I am going to attempt to avoid getting into discussions that appear to me intended to start hostile politically oriented discussions.”
I wasn’t aware that that happens on the Space Politics blog.
In any case I’m more interested in hardware discussions, which are easier to quantify than who is the best or worst elected public official.
“We have one President at a time and it is currently Obama.”
What I was trying to understand is whether BEFORE Constellation was announced, you had the same feelings about the lack of BEO plans as you do now?
“Good luck finding somebody to fight with.”
I come here to discuss, debate and learn about space related issues, of which I am most interested in topics related to lowering the cost to access space. No worries if that’s not your cup of tea…
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“Any kind of reusable spacecraft is going to need maintenance and there are no hangars in space.”
If that’s the case, we’re never going to explore the solar system if you have to launch every mission with all the fuel and supplies you need. Luckily real aerospace engineers don’t share your point of view.
Besides, in-space maintenance is what we’re learning about on the ISS, from balky rotor joints to failing ammonia pumps. It’s better to learn about these kinds of issues while you’re only 238 miles away (LEO), instead of 238,000 (Moon) or even 35M miles (Mars). Without these capabilities there will never be lunar colonies or your 1,000 ton nuclear space stations.
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
“What I was trying to understand is whether BEFORE Constellation was announced, you had the same feelings about the lack of BEO plans as you do now?â€
Easy one, Yes.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Talk about maintaining a 1000 ton nuke craft in space…
Maybe someone could enlighten me as to how they do it at sea with subs? What is the degree of autonomy they have for maintenance? What happens if they have a problem while going deep? Do they have to surface every time? Maybe a little about how they get serviced, if they are, when at sea?
That could shed a little light on how to get a deep space craft to go, 1000 tons or not, nukes or not.
Joe wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
“Easy one, Yes.”
OK. That helps me with future discussions, and in my mind it also puts you in a more rational category of posters than those who thought the end of Constellation was the end of HSF.
common sense wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“Maybe someone could enlighten me as to how they do it at sea with subs? ”
I don’t know about subs, but the armed forces and oil industry have lots of experience resupplying on the move, or in harsh conditions. Space in some ways is a more benign environment, since you’re not dealing with turbulent gas or liquid affecting the orientation of vehicles. In space I think the biggest physical issues to deal with are zero gravity and management of heat, which is what the NASA Authorization Act wants to look in to:
“SEC. 308. DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES AND IN-SPACE,
paragraph A.2:
In-space capabilities such as refueling and storage technology, orbital transfer stages, innova- tive in-space propulsion technology, communications, and data management that facilitate a broad range of users (including military and commercial) and applications defining the architecture and design of such missions.”
I know “some people” believe that transferring cold liquids in space is impossible, but I think it’s just another skill we’ll master. And really, all the serious proposals for expanding into space DEPEND on our ability to make, store and transfer Oxygen & Hydrogen in space, as well as other gasses and liquids.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
My question about subs is that if they do some servicing at sea below the surface in particular they have to have some spare parts, technicians they already have onboard. A situation somehow similar to what servicing in space might look like. VirgilSamms remark about hangars is not without merit. So the question remains to me how much servicing could we do in space for a vehicle that would cycle between planets, moons but not reenter back to Earth. How would we go about it? See imagine a cycler between the Moon and Earth. The vehicle would have to maintain a certain velocity to stay on track so to speak. If we need to service it how do we send spares to the vehicle or even a crew?
It goes beyond refueling. I think people see refueling in the same way we do on Earth with a big long hose… But we could think of modular tanks with quick (dis)connects mechanisms.
Still, how would we service a vehicle on its way to Mars for example? How many spares do we take with us? Questions like that.
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Joe wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
““Easy one, Yes.â€
OK. That helps me with future discussions, and in my mind it also puts you in a more rational category of posters than those who thought the end of Constellation was the end of HSF.”
Good, but keep in mind that HSF (at least the American version of it) has been danger of ending several times over all those Admiistations (some how it has always managed to survive – though not in a robust form and just barely). In my opinion it is once again in grave danger and the outcome this time is (of course) still unknown.
VirgilSamms
So, how big does a rocket will we need when we go to Mars? And Jupiter? Are we going to be building a Nexus?
So, yet again you are maintaining ignorance of ISS? BTW, we can do lunar missions with minimal “building” (IE docking an EDS with a craft) using a single launch propellent depot, and do it with Delta IV Heavy.
Am I the only one who had trouble understanding that sentence?
Luckily, we’ve got something that can serve as a 1st generation hanger, called ISS.
Can I suggest watching this.
common sense wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
“My question about subs is that if they do some servicing at sea below the surface in particular they have to have some spare parts, technicians they already have onboard. A situation somehow similar to what servicing in space might look like.”
My experience is more with naval electronic systems (we built the first COTS computer suites), but I think naval ships are a better analogy than subs, mainly because the deep ocean is even less hospitable than space. U.S. Navy ships do carry spare parts for needed and critical systems, and usually have machine shops to manufacture simple parts and repair battle damage. Aircraft carriers are mobile A&P shops, and are able to repair, replace or rehabilitate significant portions of the aircraft they carry, as well as repairing their own battle damage.
In the undersea environment, a good example of doing work in a remote & harsh environment is the oil industry with underwater wells. They do amazing work at bone-crushing depths, where space, with it’s clean environment and less harsh atmosphere difference, is far easier.
As our work on Hubble and the ISS have shown us, repair work in space is not too hard, and I think it’s more a matter of getting good long-term wear & tear history so we can understand how to build even better & more dependable space hardware.
My $0.02
Joe wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“…but keep in mind that HSF (at least the American version of it) has been danger of ending several times over all those Administrations…”
Not only the Presidents, but also the various Congresses. And that will continue to be a problem as long as our efforts in space are “Space Programs” instead of a space marketplace.
The way I see it, we have an opportunity right now to leverage the governments needs (supporting the ISS) into a small but diverse commercial industry that can survive past 2020 without NASA. But it won’t happen unless The Government (Congress & the Administration) want a commercial industry to take hold. The Administration does, and we’ll have to see what happens with Congress.
But as long as putting humans into space is based on the whims of Congress, our participation in space won’t be assured or secured.
Cyclers are an old idea. You can ship cargo and crew to a cycler but the problem is that a failed docking with the cycler would leave the crew heading on the same trajectory as the cycler and in a very small spacecraft(i.e. a space capsule).
You could also base a craft in a high earth orbit or a Lagrange point. You can send cargo via slow but efficient ballistic trajectories (about 100 days) or directly (4-9 days depending). Returning to an high earth orbit or Lagrange point would be easier than getting to LEO from the Moon or Mars.
Crew could be sent also but it would take either slightly upgraded versions of current launchers or two launches of the heaviest kind (Delta IV heavy plus Orion). Heavy lift here would be helpful but it does not need to be ARES V or Saturn V Class. 50- 70MT would be plenty and again here the heavy lift would not be needed (just very helpful).
Coming back to LEO is what poses problems due to the amount of propellant needed (and time if using slow trajectories/low thrust). However the crew could depart and directly renter via a transport capsule.
You could assemble a craft in LEO, launch to a Lagrange point and never have it come back to LEO.
You could also set up a solar electric tug service between LEO and a Lagrange point (or high earth orbit). There are issues with repeated exposure of the solar panels to the radiation of the Van Allen belt but it could be solve able. The bigger issue is scale. For SEP to be useful to manned spaceflight it needs to move about 10mT or more. So far nothing on this scale has be built yet but VASIMR and NASA’s NEXT ion thrusters are on this scale. Solar thermal could also work.
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
“The way I see it, we have an opportunity right now to leverage the governments needs (supporting the ISS) into a small but diverse commercial industry that can survive past 2020 without NASA. But it won’t happen unless The Government (Congress & the Administration) want a commercial industry to take hold. The Administration does, and we’ll have to see what happens with Congress.â€
We are in “violent agreement†on that statement. I would point out that this was the case with the previous administration also (the Commercial Program began then). I would hope that this leveraging will eventually continue beyond LEO to BEO. My problem with the original FY 2011 budget proposal is that (at least in my opinion) it jeopardized a very delicate balance as to how to accomplish that goal, both technically/politically (it eliminated any specific BEO goals and objectives, in favor of “open ended†research) which (in my opinion) is begging to get your funding cut off; and just politically (it “open looped†the entire Congress – then overwhelmingly in control the administration’s own party – which alienated what should have been their natural allies).
The Authorization Act of 2011 was (again in my opinion) a Heroic attempt to “fix†that problem. The real questions now are what will happen with the 2011 appropriations (as opposed to authorization – that is in Congress court) and the 2012 Budget request (does it reflect the 2011 Authorization intent – that is in the administrations court). The open letter from Harry Reid to the administration literally begging them to work to the intent of the Authorization is “scary†(does he have information that they do not intend to?)
In any case anybody wanting to see a happy outcome to this situation is going to be threading a needle through a very narrow opening for about the next 10 years.
Joe wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 11:15 am
“In any case anybody wanting to see a happy outcome to this situation is going to be threading a needle through a very narrow opening for about the next 10 years.”
I understand your concerns, and I think it’s a matter of solutions that we disagree.
In that regard though, I haven’t seen any evidence that the next big NASA program will be any better managed than the last (Constellation or even JWST), so I place my hope in getting real commerce going in space. It won’t be fast, and it may not grow quickly, but I have no confidence in Congress funding an entire BEO effort through to completion – not with NASA doing everything like on Constellation.
They (Administration, Congress & NASA) are going to have to leverage commercial services to a greater extent, and NASA needs to plan their exploration using existing or near-term launchers.
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“I understand your concerns, and I think it’s a matter of solutions that we disagree.â€
Yes, on at least one crucial point. You mention NASA’s past “failures†and I could add to the list. However I would offer another reason for those “failuresâ€. Apollo was (for a civilian space program anyway) a high budget/high priority program. Its success prompted the mindset that all future programs would be that way as well. So when Apollo was ended the final decision was to go to the Space Shuttle (the game changing/paradigm shifting bold new technology of its day). But Shuttle was not given Apollo like budget/priority. It did not fail, at least in the sense that it eventually became an operational vehicle; but it was almost cancelled several times before it finally succeeded (years late and over its artificially low budget).
There was another alternative available. That was to develop specialized vehicles (both boosters and payloads) based on the Apollo Saturn hardware and incrementally improve them as needs dictated (there is some good information on these concepts at the Astronautix website). This would have allowed a continuation of operational capabilities while staying within a less than Apollo like budget (and presenting substantially less technical risk). We are now, in my opinion, on the verge of repeating that mistake. The Shuttle hardware (and the Orion/ISS hardware on the payload side) could be used to achieve a much sooner BEO capability (at least in Cis-lunar space and I will hear plead guilty to believing Paul Spudis has the right idea strategically about how we need to proceed – that makes me what some people around here derisively call a ‘moonie).
None of that negates support for nurturing the development of commercial capabilities (first in LEO and them to the rest of Cis-Lunar space), development of in space propellant depots or eventually (when the transportation infrastructure has sufficiently developed) going well beyond the moon.
But fitting that into limited budgets while holding a political coalition together is going to be extremely difficult.
Joe wrote:
“There was another alternative available.”
I agree, if they would have put out bids for a straight per seat price for a commercial capsule & launcher and launched skylab 2. I wonder where we would be if the Nation would have pushed for a commercial path almost 40 years ago.
“Vladislaw wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Joe wrote:
“There was another alternative available.â€
I agree, if they would have put out bids for a straight per seat price for a commercial capsule & launcher and launched skylab 2. I wonder where we would be if the Nation would have pushed for a commercial path almost 40 years ago.”
That (of course) is not what I meant, but I suspect you know that.
Have a nice day.