NASA administrator Charles Bolden made his first visit to Capitol Hill Wednesday to defend the FY2012 budget request, encountering criticism of the proposal from some members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Members such as committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) criticized a budget proposal that did not align with the authorization act, with more funding than expected for commercial crew development but less for other human spaceflight accounts, in particular the new heavy-lift launcher and crew capsule. From the committee’s press release about the hearing:
Chairman Hall has long supported the development of commercial capabilities as a worthy goal, but not at the expense of ensuring a safe reliable system to get American astronauts into space. Discussing the NASA Authorization Act, Hall said, “Commercial crew was not ignored, but to be perfectly clear, it was not – and is not – Congress’ first priority. Yet the Administration’s FY2012 budget proposal completely flips the priorities of the Act, significantly increasing Commercial Crew funding while making deep cuts to the Human Exploration Capabilities accounts which Congress clearly intended to serve as our assured access to space.”
The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), was also critical of elements of the budget request: “I had thought that the Administration agreed with the compromise that was enacted into law, but I am afraid that I do not see it reflected in the proposed NASA budget request. The request cuts NASA’s overall budget plan and its human exploration budget even further than before, delays the development of the next generation vehicles, and eliminates any concrete destinations or milestones beyond the International Space Station.”
Bolden defended the emphasis on commercial crew in the budget request. “I am certain that commercial entities can deliver,” he said, as reported by AFP, adding that we must “become unafraid of risks.”
In her release, Rep. Johnson said that “the most constructive approach for all of us here is to consider the budget request that you will present today as the beginning of the discussion, not the end.” But then, a budget request is rarely accepted without debate.
Hall etc are thinking along the lines of trying to preserve the shuttle infrastructure…its more lame thinking like Paul Spudis does in his latest “save the shuttle” article
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2011/03/discarding-shuttle-the-hidden-cost/
the problem of course is that the infrastructure Spudis and Hall want to save…cost more then it is worth and what replaces it will (hopefully) operate on a far less expensive basis.
it is the “save the Battleships” argument.
Great ships, just their era has passed.
Same with the shuttle
Old people with old ideas
Robert G. Oler
Commercial crew was not ignored, but to be perfectly clear, it was not – and is not – Congress’ first priority.
This has been the prevailing view since 2004. Most of us were shocked that Obama as foolish enough to hand human spaceflight over to entities with no experience and marginal designs. You can see that most of the committee feels this way.
I had thought that the Administration agreed with the compromise…
It’s that Saul Alinski playbook we have all become so familiar with.
I am certain that commercial entities can deliver,
Would be a comforting statement if we had any confidence in his competency or judgement. The question is when. At the current flight rate the amateurs might be ready for a manned attempt with childish spacecraft around 2020.
he said, as reported by AFP, adding that we must “become unafraid of risks.â€
Empty rhetoric. The nation will be less forgiving of failures on the commercial programs than they were on the shuttle.
Old people with old ideas
Goes along with what an old college professor of mine stated many years ago; “The only people who like change are babies with crappy diapers.”
How true.
I’m pretty sure that Bolden won’t be on many Xmas card lists after those comments. Particularly by making it clear that SLS is less important than commercial crew and will only pursued (in its LEO form) if commercial options kill a crew or two. A part of me couldn’t help but smile about his comment to the effect that commercial crew to ISS was the Apollo Moon mission of our generation. That if nothing else, will trigger a firestorm.
Maybe someone who knows can tell me: I know that Bolden is appointed by the executive branch, but can Congress use an equivalent of the impeachment process to force his removal? It’s just that I suspect a prolonged cold wind from Congress might finish off the agency (at least in any recognisable form).
@ Oler
Whether or not Oler’s opinions have merit or not (sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t), his opinions are moot now that we know he engages in ageism: “Old people with old ideas,” he states. That lunatic statement erases any legitimacy one might find in the prior statements.
Everything is bigger in Texas… even the hypocracy.
Is there any indication that the Congressbeings think that the HLV is going to be the launcher for Orion/MPCV on ISS/LEO missions?
Congress has put two conflicting criteria into the soup:
USA-Human launch capability
and
Heavy Lift Rocket
******
treated separately by short-emphasis on H-rating Atlas or Delta would alleviate some of the political pressure and give Bolden more time to build a proper heavy lift.
The compromise that was agreed to was DIRECT and CCDev. The Utah delegation then tacked on Ares 1/5. in a legislative maneuver.
If there is a legitimate defense need for ATK’s 5 seg, the Utah delegation better make that clear to their colleagues, and transfer the funding responsibility and management from NASA to DoD.
It looks like the House keeps forgetting what the law is that NASA is trying to follow, which concerning commercial crew is:
“SEC. 2. FINDINGS. (10) Congress restates its commitment, expressed in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–155) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–422), to the development of commercially developed launch and delivery systems to the ISS for crew and cargo missions. Congress reaffirms that NASA shall make use of United States commercially provided ISS crew transfer and crew rescue services to the maximum extent practicable.”
In order for the U.S. to stop sending money out of the country (i.e. Russia) for crew services to the ISS, NASA has to make sure that more than one commercial provider is ready by 2016. Per the direction Congress has given, the MPCV is only a backup to commercial services:
“SEC. 302. (D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.”
Why should NASA be putting all it’s efforts into a back up system, when it hasn’t done enough to get the primary ones in place? Typical politicians.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 9:58 am
“Maybe someone who knows can tell me: I know that Bolden is appointed by the executive branch, but can Congress use an equivalent of the impeachment process to force his removal? ”
the only person that can remove Charlie Bolden is the person with the Oval Office in The White House
Charlie serves solely at the pleasure of The President of The United States
Robert G. Oler
Franklin wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 10:30 am
I was curious if someone would bite…thanks.
I know 20 somethings that are “old”.
Old is not a state of age, it is a state of mind. When a person can no longer adapt to changing circumstances…they are old
This is “wind” arguing for a “more traditional approach”…or whatever phrase he used
Robert G. oler
but can Congress use an equivalent of the impeachment process to force his removal? It’s just that I suspect a prolonged cold wind from Congress might finish off the agency (at least in any recognisable form).
I have wondered the same thing. To create such a sharp break with congress 2 months after making a deal with them makes no logical sense. Did Bolden actually think Newspace would be well received after last year’s war? The fact is Bolden is just a marionette. Holdren and Garver are the puppeteers.
I share other’s rejection of Oler foolish words. When devoid of an argument he just snarls.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote:
Maybe someone who knows can tell me: I know that Bolden is appointed by the executive branch, but can Congress use an equivalent of the impeachment process to force his removal? It’s just that I suspect a prolonged cold wind from Congress might finish off the agency (at least in any recognisable form).
I don’t think Congress has the authority to remove an agency head. Separation of powers, and all that.
However, one could envision some scenario where a united Congress threatens to torpedo a President’s pet project unless a certain person is removed from office.
That won’t happen in this case, because outside of a few pork-happy Congresscritters no one in Congress cares much about government-funded space.
amightywind wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 8:29 am
Would be a comforting statement if we had any confidence in his competency or judgment. The question is when. At the current flight rate the amateurs might be ready for a manned attempt with childish spacecraft around 2020.
All US companies that build rockets are commercial. The “startups” have experienced people from the commercial industry in all levels. Startups aren’t the only companies competing for “Commercial Crew” The debate is rocket development vs. service acquisition and the involvement of NASA in the development/service acquisition.
Spaceflights for new vehicles developed in the last 10 years:
Orion: 0
MPCV: 0
Dragon: 1
ATV: 2
HTV: 2
I’m sure Orion/MPCV will not change by this time next year.
Someone out there! Please call 9-1-1 right away!!….something must have happened to The Man Behind the Koolaid Curtain!! I am absolutely certain that Bolden’s statement “We need to become unafraid of risks.” would be the focus of blistering negative comments by the Great and Powerfull Oler. ANYTHING that entails risk (like the space shuttle or missile defense) should be RETIRED immediately and an investigation started as to why it was ever put into service in the first place. (Bummer, I actually used to like Bolden)
“Bolden defended the emphasis on commercial crew in the budget request.”
Sorry, Charlie. It is indefensible in the Age of Austerity. Particularly as the U.S. government already operates several space programs through NASA, the DoD and intelligences services, to name a few. Consolidation of these operations would save money as well. The source for funding of ‘private enterprised’ commercial spaceflight is the private sector capital markets, not the U.S. Treasury, which currently has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends.
But then the House approved subsidies for the very flush petroleum industry just yesterday. Every Republican voted for it. Perhaps SpaceX should just change its name to Musk Oil and the cash will start flowing… or better still, Master Musk might just go to the private sector and pump the industrious executives at Exxon for funding– or advice– on how a big bad private enterprised ‘for profit’ capitalist oil company manages to wrestle such sweet subsidies from a government that’s broke.
“Bolden defended the emphasis on commercial crew in the budget request. “I am certain that commercial entities can deliver,†he said, as reported by AFP, adding that we must “become unafraid of risks.—
Charlie, there’s an ol’ comedy you outta see: Other People’s Money.”
Then put up all your pensions, past and present, and personal assets and invest in commercial HSF. Or better still, retire, while the government still has the monies to fund your pensions.
“the only person that can remove Charlie Bolden is the person with the Oval Office in The White House”
Incorrect. Article 2 Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
“All civil officials:” would seem to include the Administrator of NASA. Now, impeaching Charles Bolden for violation of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 would seem to be harsh and likely would not happen. But Congress could in theory do it.
What is old at NASA is the leadership, not in age, but in willingness to see with open minds and open eyes.
I worry about how “innovation” will be interpreted by the various Centers. At some Centers, innovators are really those folks to push quite an old idea and make it seem sparkly.
Fred Cink wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“by the Great and Powerfull Oler. ANYTHING that entails risk (like the space shuttle or missile defense) should be RETIRED immediately and an investigation started as to why it was ever put into service in the first place. ”
The Great and Powerfull (sic) Oler…hmm kind of has that “Great Santini” affect.
As I try and explain to the children, there is a “borderline” between “risk” and “foolishness”. that is called “thoughffullness”.
You mention “Missile defense”. It is foolish to continue on with the notion of terminal phase interception by missiles for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that even if the system had at least a .50 percent chance of working (and the one Donald Duck Rumsfeld declared operational barely has single digit chance of working) one has to fire an unreasonable number of interceptors to have a “reasonable” chance of a kill. That is not the case with boost phase interception by missiles.
Continuing the shuttle system seems “foolish” because the cost to value is so high, and there are things near term if not here now which can do the job that the shuttle does. Assume a shuttle system cost 200-300 million a month in static cost (a not unreasonable assumption)…one could launch a lot of Falcon9 Dragon’s/less but still a solid number of Atlas or Delta combination for just the price of keeping the infrastructure intact.
It is pretty clear why the last administration cranked up an ABM system that has never demonstrated real reliability…it was not important that the system worked, it was just important that they sounded “tough”.
as for the shuttle continuing to fly…well thats a pork issue.
Robert G. Oler aka The Great and Powerful Oler
I know that Bolden is appointed by the executive branch, but can Congress use an equivalent of the impeachment process to force his removal?
Even if they could, why in the world would they? The only congresspeople who care about this are the porkers on the committees.
Given all that we know, I thing Gen. Bolden’s focus on commercial manned spaceflight makes sense. In our fiscal condition, we must try to make the most of what ever resources we may have available. Retaining our capacity to put people safely into LEO depends on commercial entities like ULA, Boeing, Spacex, SNC, and Orbital. Future exploration depends on the development of new technologies, more than the politically expedient SLS and MPCV.
Hi CR –
“Why should NASA be putting all it’s efforts into a back up system, when it hasn’t done enough to get the primary ones in place? Typical politicians.”
Because the primary Ares 1 can’t do it at cost, which many spotted from the first.
If for nothing else, Griffin should be hammered for not developing the back-up systems.
Future exploration depends on the development of new technologies, more than the politically expedient SLS and MPCV.
That’s it in a nutshell is it not? The good of the whole nation vs. the good of the few in a fit of political expediency.
I wonder which will win out?
“In our fiscal condition, we must try to make the most of what ever resources we may have available.”
I think we should take that 35 billion they are going to spend on new air force tankers and………..
And the 323 billion for new stealth fighters.
The comanche helicopter finally killed after 21 years of funding; but not as much money wasted as the 20 billion dollar 25 year Osprey program.
And I could go on and on and on. Really- at least a dozen more programs with similar price tags. At least. And that is not going into black classified program funding. And the DOD satellite program- twice NASA’s budget. and on and on.
But do not talk about funding HLV’s. Even a cargo sidemount that is the best way to go to preserve the U.S. ability to have any kind of a real space program. Nooooo….that’s verboten. We want hobby rockets.
Idiots.
Florida Today reports Charlie Bolden told the House Appropriations Committee today he’ll announce on April 12 which sites receive the three orbiters once they’re retired.
Discovery goes to the Smithsonian, which currently has Enterprise, so I believe he’ll announce where Enterprise goes along with Atlantis and Endeavour.
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
“All civil officials:†would seem to include the Administrator of NASA. Now, impeaching Charles Bolden for violation of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 would seem to be harsh and likely would not happen. But Congress could in theory do it.
According to The ‘Lectric Law Library:
The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.
Assuming this citation is correct, then my earlier surmise was wrong.
But it’s laughable to think that two-thirds of the Senate would waste its time trying and voting to impeach the NASA administrator for doing his job.
When someone puts up a cost / benefit case for developing and flying SLS and MPCV as opposed to ustilising existing vehicles, then I’ll go along with it but it hasn’t happened yet. Whenever you start to talk cost, the proponents all slink away into their holes knowing full well that their plans can compete. And let’s be clear, they are just plans and vapourware unlike those vehicles that have clear incremental development paths.
“one could launch a lot of Falcon9 Dragon’s/less but still a solid number of Atlas or Delta combination for just the price of keeping the infrastructure intact.â€
An evolved block II sidemount launching 90 tons once every two months would put up over 500 tons. Your “solid number” of inferior lift vehicles would have to launch at least 30 times to match that.
I do not think your math is very good. Ariane has taken over most of the commercial satellite market by loading several at a time on their Ariane V.
6 launches a year with a proven paid for infrastructure to equal dozens of inferior vehicle launches. 6 launches is very conservative- without the shuttle in the mix 8 to 10 launches a year are a realistic rate. Putting close to a thousand tons a year into orbit. How many falcon 9’s would that take? How many merlin engines would that expend?
The entire private space fiasco will be seen as a deck of cards that fell at the first failure leaving the U.S. with nothing but a ruined space program.
We need a cargo version of Sidemount and the Liberty launch vehicle. A “corrected and affordable version of constellation” is a much more realistic goal than this hobby rocket farce.
The elephant in the room is still the cost and lethargy of the prime contractors. It didn’t come up in any meaningful way during the hearing.
Decades of monopolies on their shuttle parts along with a rationale to be the most expensive in the world resulted in the Ares I fiasco. Ten Billion squandered and not much to show for it. The fact that they started with a large amount of flight proven hardware makes the failure even more momentous. NASA is at the mercy of their prime contractors, and the new commercial companies, achieving for pennies on the dollar what NASA and the prime contractors failed to achieve with the Ares I, offer a glimmer of hope.
If Apollo was NASA’s greatest success, then begging rides to the ISS from the Russians has to be its greatest failure. Unfortunately, it will be years before the new commercial companies are ready to safely transport humans.
Since it now seems that commercial has hit a raw nerve with the vested interests of space pork, will we now see the truth come out about the emperor’s old clothes?
Will it all hit the fan when Dragon connects up to the ISS this summer? (I think it will dock at it’s next launch as there is no good reason to not allow it, as both HTV and ATV docked on their maiden voyages). It saves money for NASA and SpaceX.
At some point Congress is going to see the light and realize that cutting out HLV/SLS from the budget is going to make a lot of sense. Spending a lot of money to accomplish very little is not nearly as exciting as spending a little to accomplish a lot (which funding for commercial crew would do). Besides, wouldn’t cutting a highly questionable, highly expensive, highly delayed program make a lot of tea party people (and cost-conscious Americans) more happy. Of course, I realize that the money saved is a drop in the bucket, but the message is clear.
NASA can do a lot more with a lot less by purchasing transportation services instead of planning, building, and maintaining them themselves.
I thought Bolden was before the House defending the 2012 budget. Why should he be held to the 2011 budget requirements. Surely if the circumstances change the budget can change or do the good congressmen and women expect that things should never change? That somehow the 2011 appropriation language is set in stone for all time and all future budgets.
But it shouldn’t be that way. Things have changed since this time last year. That’s typical of a commercial way of doing things. Things change rapidly. Boeing has come to the table with CST-100 which is already farther advanced than the Orion. And would anyone seriously argue that Boeing is incapable of developing a simple crew vehicle? As well Dragon has flown its first COTS mission and aced it.
Taken together these developments raise the probability of commercial crew succeeding to quite high levels. And the continuing funding problems for Orion (or whatever it’s called now) mean it is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
As well the rationale for Orion is dissolving. It was envisioned as a multipurpose vehicle. Capable of LEO ops in support of the ISS as well as BEO missions. With the increasing likelyhood of its LEO function being overtaken by commercial we’ver got to ask if Orion is the best design for BEO and whether a more optimised deep space vehicle leading towards something like Nautilus-X wouldn’t be better.
As a first cut how about an off the shelf Sundancer module being pushed along by a modified Centaur Upper Stage.
The whole thing, a Sundancer and Centaur mods could be done for a fraction of Orions projected development cost and we could start BEO exploration within a few years.
Just like last year: the Administration proposes, but Congress disposes. Commercial crew will get 75%-85% of their proposal, but the rest will be diverted to MPCV(Orion) and SLS. More if some Congresscritters have their way and NASA’s climate change research (seen by some as wasteful duplication of what NOAA, NSF, etc. do) gets gutted and funds diverted over to HSF.
Has this hearing been shown anywhere? Not the NASA Channel or C-SPAN, last I checked.
Oops type ‘can’t compete’.
Another one. typo’ or more correctly ‘ typographical error’.
Don’t worry, we know that you meant “knowing full well that their plans can’t compete. ”
They do slink away.
@ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 8:11 pm
“But it’s laughable to think that two-thirds of the Senate would waste its time trying and voting to impeach the NASA administrator for doing his job.”
As I said before. Never underestimate the dark side of the farce… err force.
Marc Trolinger wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 5:51 pm
“Given all that we know, I thing Gen. Bolden’s focus on commercial manned spaceflight makes sense.”
Then he belongs in the private sector as an advocate and has no business holding a position in government- especially as administrator of the civilian government space agency.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 5:06 pm
wrote:
“Incorrect. Article 2 Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.â€
it is not for this forum, but there is a legitimate question as to what a “civil officer” is. In the one case coincerning a member of the cabinet William Belknap…there was a resignation before the trial, and the SCOTUS refused to rule on the matter after the resignation…but the DC circuit had noted that cabinet secretaries were not “creatures of the executive and governed by the “mood” of the executive” (“mood” was a term that G. drum roll Washington used)….
an interesting point of discussion but well another forum!
Robert G. Oler
FWIW, this morning’s launch of the OSC Taurus-XL rocket carrying the NASA GLORY satellite failed due because the payload fairing failed to separate. Although it is too early to speculate on exact causes, it is worth noting that the previous Taurus-XL mission, carrying NASA’s OCO-1 satellite, also failed because the payload fairing did not separate.
It would be unfair to draw too many lessons from this vis OSC’s competence. Remember that their other product, the Minotaur, is so reliable that it is launching NRO payloads, the US space launch seal of excellence if there ever was one. However, it does put a big question mark over Taurus-XL’s future. IMO at least, it also makes a nonsense of what at least one Congressperson recently said that it wasn’t necessary for NASA to buy flights on newer boosters like Falcon-9 because it had the re-purposed ICBMs. I guess those old military birds aren’t quite as perfect as some people think.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“An evolved block II sidemount launching 90 tons once every two months would put up over 500 tons.”
which is not needed and is not affordable.
The problem with supporters of the HLV of any flavor is that there is no reason for it. Everyone says things like you…but the problem is that there is NOTHING to put on an HLV even if the nation was willing to pay the 2-3 billion plus a year such lift would cost.
For the 200 a month that the shuttle cost just sitting there…a lot of Falcon9’s fly…and thats enough for the station and to prime the pump for commercial use
Robert G. Oler
“I guess those old military birds aren’t quite as perfect as some people think.”
Taurus has no ICBM hardware in it.
“Then he belongs in the private sector as an advocate and has no business holding a position in government- especially as administrator of the civilian government space agency.”
There is no one bit of sense in that statement.
There is nothing wrong with govt officials being advocates for industry.
The business of America is business.
Matt Wiser wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 10:02 pm
“Just like last year: the Administration proposes, but Congress disposes. Commercial crew will get 75%-85% of their proposal”
More likely it will get the $500 Million Authorised (more like 59%); whether the money will be diverted to SLS/MPCV remains to be seen.
“Has this hearing been shown anywhere? Not the NASA Channel or C-SPAN, last I checked.â€
NASA Select used to show the pertient committee hearings real time and repeat them (at least once) the same day (in the evening). For some reason after the Obama Administration took over this policy was changed.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“6 launches a year with a proven paid for infrastructure to equal dozens of inferior vehicle launches.”
No one doubts we can build HLV’s, what is in dispute is whether they are cost effective for getting mass to orbit.
How much would your HLV development cost, and how much would they cost per launch?
It is hard to correct decades of mistakes in a few short years but more to the point it is almost impossible to do it without strong leadership. Although I dislike Bolden because I find him so uninspiring, I can not blame him….. I do like President Obama in many ways but his lack of leadership and been there done that attitude toward NASA has made the situation what it is…… Continued Hopeless drift…….Even if congress was on board with commercial funding it would take far more that 850 million seriously put them in a position to reliably depend on the commercial folks for Leo transport …… Space x needs more than that all by them selves and we do not want them cutting any corners because it will eventually kill some fine astronauts if they do. Anyway the main point I wanted to make is I do not see this being resolved until new leadership comes in…..and even then it may continue to be sad. We have to embrace something………even with all of constellations faults at least it was a plan, by the time NASA gets clear direction and funding constellation would be in full operation……that’s right…..I have serious doubts whether the cancellation of constellation will improve either the timeline or Nasa’s overall disposition…….. 3 years down the drain and counting already……
The sad(est?) fact is Congress will go to hell before it doesn’t build a HLV. So what’s the best option for this bad decision? As the best government is the least government, the best (yes, oxymoronic) HLV is the least HLV. Which is the least? Delta PH2?, Sidemount?, ?, ?, ?…
@gary moore
As has been repeated time and time again, NOTHING shuttle related is a good choice. Sidemount is (once again) something you see only in x-rated videos.
Of course ATK will try and get some of the CCDev money for the FrankenRocket, but it will never fly.
Whereas the folks at ULA have a track record of excellence with their Atlas and Titan rockets. They are real and they work, so why do we need to reinvent the wheel?
I don’t mind wasting money on SLS/MPCV, so long as we have money to waste — and so long as it doesn’t cut into the budget for Commercial Crew. If we can’t cut back NASA’s legacy bureaucracy and infrastructure, I’d rather not have them wrecking Commercial Crew with micromanagement. SLS/MPCV are clearly make work programs.
The facts are:
1. The Space Shuttle were designed for 100 missions, we have only used 1/3rd of their designed life. Now that’s a waist of MONEY!!!
2. The Orbiters are the most advanced low earth orbit system in history; no one has come close to the United States.
3. The Orbiters are the most flexible, reliable and (pound for pound) the better business case. $51,000,000 US to the Russians for 6 more flights/US astronauts = $306,000,000 US. With no cargo/HW.
4. The Space Shuttle system is the future of manned space flight.
5. The Apollo era type designs (CCDEV) is not forward thinking, these are steps backwards. And certainly not for Mars type missions.
6. The Commercial systems are in their infancy and will take at least another $100,000,000 US to get up to the point where they can put a human into LEO.
Take your blinders off and know your facts.
Tired of listening to those who don’t know what it really takes to put humans into space.
Louis wrote:
Take your blinders off and know your facts.
Start with yourself.
Read the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report. It concluded that Shuttle is a risky and complex system. The only reason they didn’t recommend ending Shuttle flights was because no other option was available — so they urged the Bush administration to fly Shuttle only until the ISS was complete, and then retire the fleet.
That’s what Bush did.
As we saw with STS-133, we continue to have problems with foam shedding that threaten the orbiters. Shuttle has a fundamental design flaw — the crew vehicle mounted on the side, exposing the crew to falling debris and flame. The orbiter has no real escape system.
The Bush administration and Congress agreed seven years ago that Shuttle needs to be retired. To suggest now that it’s the “future of manned space flight” is laughable.
Scott Bass wrote:
I do like President Obama in many ways but his lack of leadership and been there done that attitude toward NASA has made the situation what it is……
Quite the opposite. Obama acknowledges reality — Congress will not provide funding for a robust human space flight program. That’s one big reason Constellation failed. He also realizes that the government faces $1 trillion+ annual deficits for the forseeable future.
Thinking that a President can somehow sprinkle magic fairy dust that will convince Congress to fund an expanded human space flight program is just self-delusion. If Congress was truly interested, they would have done so. They haven’t, and they won’t.
The Obama administration has found a way to perpetuate human space flight in Low Earth Orbit by growing commercial space. The savings can be used to extend the International Space Station until at least 2020 and probably further. The ISS can be used to study and simulate long-term human space flight to Mars and elsewhere, so if/when Congress changes its mind then we’ll have the knowledge to go.
If there were a compelling argument to spend more on space, it would have been made long ago. Obviously, there isn’t one.
Bennett wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 11:26 am
“As has been repeated time and time againâ€
Repeating something over and over does not make it true.
“NOTHING shuttle related is a good choice. Sidemount is (once again) something you see only in x-rated videos. â€
Yeah, a really “witty†put down (if you are about 12 years old).
“Whereas the folks at ULA have a track record of excellence with their Atlas and Titan rockets. They are real and they work, so why do we need to reinvent the wheel?â€
Did you mean “Atlas and Delta rockets?
The stimulus money was there…..that fairy dust could have gone a long way toward getting NASA back on track……they chose highway projects etc instead……..although this mess was decades in the making, the current situation rest squarely on President Obamas plate. It is simply a lack of vision and leadership. The extra years it would have taken due to budgetary concerns are now just being thrown away on indecision. on a side note… I did vote for him and still think he was the right choice at the time…… However if i had known he was going to dismantle NASA then I would not have.
Correction…if I had known he was going to dismantle constellation……even with all it’s flaws it is much better than the plan we have now…..I mean unplan since we really still don’t have one
@ Louis wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“Take your blinders off and know your facts.”
Oh wow you do know your facts. Shuttle infrastructure cost in excess of $200M per month, MONTH. So 12 months means $2.4B or at $51M the seat on Soyuz it means 47 seats per year on Soyuz.
Another one…
The Commercial systems are in their infancy and will take at least another $100,000,000 US to get up to the point where they can put a human into LEO.
Actually, it will cost several hundred million dollars and another couple years. Do you have any sense what a trivial amount of money that is compared to what NASA proposed to spend on Ares/Orion?
@ Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
“Actually, it will cost several hundred million dollars and another couple years. Do you have any sense what a trivial amount of money that is compared to what NASA proposed to spend on Ares/Orion?”
Actually it may not. Remember what Elon said about the flight. The “problem” to get all this in a couple of years is to develop a LAS. Now let’s think for a minute that SpaceX flies a SpaceX crew. Not a NASA one. For sure a LAS is appealing but come on Shuttle has flown for all those years without one. And a LAS may, only MAY, have saved the day once. So let’s assume that they want to fly their own crew they may very well fly much earlier than that…
Just sayin’
@Joe, yes, Delta. Not sure where Titan came from… Regardless, the statement hold true. They are real, they work, and can boost any payload we have planned. There is nothing planned that requires either a SDHLV or HLV of any flavor.
It wasn’t meant to be a put down of the sidemount concept, but why would we want to continue that kind of legacy infrastructure?
@ Bennett wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Did I say that sidemount would not work for crew? Did I say why? Nah we should ask the experts at JSC…
Sorry couldn’t help.
So let’s assume that they want to fly their own crew they may very well fly much earlier than that…
I would if I were them. In fact, I’d fly a crew on the next flight.
@ Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“I would if I were them. In fact, I’d fly a crew on the next flight.”
It may take at least another flight. If not two. The flight went flawless of course, minus all that was not planned… Now and then they are flying two prototypes F9 and Dragon at the same time. It may be asking too much for next flight.
Now maybe if Alan Shepard was available…
Bennett wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
“There is nothing planned that requires either a SDHLV or HLV of any flavor.
It wasn’t meant to be a put down of the sidemount concept, but why would we want to continue that kind of legacy infrastructure?â€
Two Points:
– Since we now have no approved BEO Program then it is certainly true there is no single large payload that requires any form of HLV. If we ever get a real BEO Objective again (and I am talking about a goal not the implementation of Constellation systems) that will very likely change.
– The intent of continuing development of an HLV (specifically SDHLV in this case) is to (1) allow that BEO mission to proceed more swiftly when it is defined (when the “current unpleasantness†– do not know what else to call it – is over), (2) Provide a backup to the Commercial capabilities in case they do not work out (I know a lot of people around here do not accept that even as a possibility, but obviously the Congress does – and all the saying†PORK†and “OINK†over and over again is not likely to change that fact).
If they fly and have a successful ISS docking and another flawless recovery, they’d have no trouble finding people willing to fly.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“I would if I were them. In fact, I’d fly a crew on the next flight.â€
I understand you point about being willing to take greater risks, however, my understanding is that Dragon Vehicle currently does not have: (1) a launch abort system, (2) an ECLSS system, (3) seats for the “crew†(including impact attenuation accommodations, for safety/survival). That in fact Space X is only proposing to begin work on these systems:
“The primary focus of our CCDev2 proposal is the launch abort system. Using our experience with NASA’s COTS office as a guide, we have proposed implementing the crew-related elements of Dragon’s design with specific hardware milestones, which will provide NASA with regular, demonstrated progress including:
•initial design of abort engine and crew accommodations;
•static fire testing of the launch abort system engines; and
•prototype evaluations by NASA crew for seats, control panels and cabinâ€
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Are you suggesting that all this work could begin and be completed by the next flight date or that they should launch someone without them?
Louis wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“1. The Space Shuttle were designed for 100 missions…”
The Shuttle system was also supposed to fly far more frequently than it has, and cost far, FAR less per launch. Besides, after the ISS is finished, is no need for it.
“2. The Orbiters are the most advanced low earth orbit system in history…”
And the complicated & fragile. Remember we’ve lost 40% of the fleet to simple problems.
“3. The Orbiters are the most flexible, reliable and (pound for pound) the better business case.”
That must be why the DoD/NRO stopped using it, and no commercial companies can afford to use them? I don’t think you know what a business case is…
“$51,000,000 US to the Russians for 6 more flights/US astronauts = $306,000,000 US.”
I guess it’s not surprising that you didn’t know that the Shuttle cannot add or support crew at the ISS for more than two weeks. If you want to live on the ISS, you need a CRV like Soyuz for lifeboat service, which is what the CST-100 and Dragon are built to support. The Shuttle is useful for delivering temporary workers and government-funded tourists.
“4. The Space Shuttle system is the future of manned space flight.”
Uh, another thing you may not know is that the Shuttle only goes to LEO, so it could never be used for BEO. But maybe your vision of manned space flight is just circling the Earth?
“And [CCDev is] certainly not for Mars type missions.”
Ooh, you got one correct. But then again, no one is building anything for Mars, so you’re making a false argument.
“6. The Commercial systems are in their infancy and will take at least another $100,000,000 US to get up to the point where they can put a human into LEO.”
Considering that the MPCV will cost more than $20B just to get to it’s first flight (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-239SP), $100M sounds like a bargain. But the real number is likely to less than $4B once you add in human-rating Delta IV Heavy ($1.3B) and Atlas V ($400M).
“Take your blinders off and know your facts.”
You took the words right out of my mouth…
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
“Actually, it will cost several hundred million dollars and another couple years. Do you have any sense what a trivial amount of money that is compared to what NASA proposed to spend on Ares/Orion?”
The difference, of course, is Orion has future as a GP spacecraft for BEO missions which can run decades out- LEO commercial human spacecraft do not.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
So let’s assume that they want to fly their own crew they may very well fly much earlier than that… ‘I would if I were them. In fact, I’d fly a crew on the next flight.’
And yet you’ve boasted on this forum they ‘had no need to’ at this time. Good grief. Apparently, the shills have finally realized that getting soem actual HSF experience can carry some leverage at obstaining government subsidies. Of course, for all we know, Dragon is still a deathtrap w/o a viable, verified, functioning ECS for crewed flight and no crewed suborbital or crewed orbital flights have occurred to date. If SpaceX doesn’t orbit a crew safely by February 20, 2012, half a century after Glenn, they never will. Zero economic rationale for a ‘for profit’ firm to be investing and developing crude LEO capsules to access a space station, increasingly starved for funding and doomed to splash by decade’s end. If SpaceX had launched manned suborbital flight last year, they’d have much more credibility– ah, but there’s that ECS problem. How’s that Mars retirement condo coming along, Master Musk?
Joe wrote: “(2) Provide a backup to the Commercial capabilities in case they do not work out”
Boeing, the ONE player in commercial space with a long history of building manned spacecraft is building a capsule to fly on an Atlas V, a proven LV.
This gives the USA the equivalent of a Soyuz, which we trust to deliver our people to the ISS. Where exactly is the risk that things “won’t work out”?
I just don’t get it. Why spend tens of billions of dollars to build a HLV for ISS “backup”? Let’s close the gap with CCDev while developing the hardware for BEO missions that don’t need a HLV.
Are you suggesting that all this work could begin and be completed by the next flight date or that they should launch someone without them?
I’m suggesting that they don’t need a launch escape system. It adds some level of safety, but it’s not essential, if the mission is important. The crew couches and life-support system are relatively trivial developments and could be ready in a few months.
DCSCA drooled:
If SpaceX doesn’t orbit a crew safely by February 20, 2012, half a century after Glenn, they never will.
Good lord, you’re a moron.
Scott Bass wrote:
However if i had known he was going to dismantle NASA then I would not have.
An obvious lie, since NASA is alive and well. Now that you’ve exposed your true agenda, I can ignore your future posts.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
“If they fly and have a successful ISS docking and another flawless recovery, they’d have no trouble finding people willing to fly.”
Rubbish. Dragon will never fly a crewed craft. There’s no economicly viable rationale for investing millions into a LEO crewed craft to access a doomed space station. It has no viable, independently verified ECS for human spaceflight and there is no independently verified data showing a human crew could survive reentry. They’ve flown cheese. But then, Iran blasted a mouse, two turtles and worms into space over a year ago. Tick-tock, tick-tock, SpaceX.
@ Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
“If they fly and have a successful ISS docking and another flawless recovery, they’d have no trouble finding people willing to fly.”
Docking is a separate issue.
I am sure you can always find people to fly no matter what. But to be safe, so to speak, I think they need at least one or two more safe launches and recoveries. It is difficult to say without knowing the results of the flight. I mean actual data, not whether Dragon fell in the predicted footprint. Did they use more or less thrusters for reentry? Did they burn the sidewall and how much of it? Did chute deploy as intended? What was the vehicle attitude/stability on chute deployment? You like your astronauts stirred not shaken, and not too much.
Whether they already have a crewed design is any one’s guess. But a LAS is not a deal breaking thing, except maybe for NASA. I am not even sure that NASA would not fly without a LAS…
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
someone wrote:
So let’s assume that they want to fly their own crew they may very well fly much earlier than that…
Rand Simberg responded..
I would if I were them. In fact, I’d fly a crew on the next flight………………….
You are probably spot on on this, but I suspect that there is “one more” flight with a Dragon before that thought goes past “something in the planning stage” with SpaceX
If I were them I would fly the next flight and if all goes well then saddle up a “demo” flight with a pilot, some journalist and some “ordinary” but talented person…mix it up gender wise, make sure all look good on high def and well aim for the anniversary next year of John Glenn’s flight.
Robert G. Oler
Scott Bass wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“The stimulus money was there…..that fairy dust could have gone a long way toward getting NASA back on track”
that is the fiction of people like you but it wouldnt have worked.
The trick about Cx is that while NASA claimed it simply needed “more money” the reality is that any money that went in that direction would have gotten as little bang for the buck as the rest of the dollars did.
I dont understand why folks like you continue to support really inefficient systems.
Robert G. Oler AKA the Great and Powerful Oler
DCSCA wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
“The difference, of course, is Orion has future as a GP spacecraft for BEO missions which can run decades out- LEO commercial human spacecraft do not”
not really no. At best “another version” of Orion has that capability but its hard to imagine people sitting in a can like Orion (even with another can docked to it) for missions which are approaching 3-6 months.
The systems might have some value, but the “can” itself has very little.
What “Orion” assumes is 1) that the folks who go on “BEO” missions are going to launch in the same can that they return in and 2) that this can is enough to keep them alive while they go “somewhere”.
none of that seems realistic for any sort of mission more then just flags and footprints.
Robert G. Oler
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
That “life-support system are relatively trivial developments and could be ready in a few months†would come as a great surprise to the people who have actually worked to develop them. Additionally while “crew couches†may seem trivial assuring crew protection during all flight phases (lift off, parachute deploy, landing, etc.) is not.
I understand what I thought was your point about being willing to take greater risks (the way “test pilots†used to), but your assumption that developing an ECLSS is “trivial†(equivalent to throwing a couple of SCUBA bottles in the module?) is (to say the least) troubling.
Re Dragon and ISS, folks seem to forget that Bigelow Aerospace is out there with plans to build a private space station.
So it could be Dragon atop a Falcon 9 to Bigelow, and who cares about the fate of ISS (which will probably be around until the end of the 2020s).
Bennett wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
“Let’s close the gap with CCDev while developing the hardware for BEO missions that don’t need a HLV.”
Sounds like a campaign commercial to me. Maybe you should run for Congress.
@Joe,
Nah, being on the school board exposes me to enough politics as it is.
Hi RGO –
“The problem with supporters of the HLV of any flavor is that there is no reason for it.”
http://aquapour.com/asteroid-record-set-by-pan-starrs/556208/
Got any plans?
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
Joe wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 8:56 am
“I understand what I thought was your point about being willing to take greater risks, but your assumption that developing an ECLSS is “trivial†is (to say the least) troubling.”
Not trivial from a life or death situation, but not exactly something hard either. What it takes to keep a person alive is quite well known, and Paragon systems received CCDev money to build a compact generic system for spacecraft.
But if all you’re going to do is a demo test, then I don’t think it would be difficult to pull together the equipment. My neighbor is a closed circuit rebreather diver, and his equipment keeps him alive for up to eight hours underwater.
And haven’t you watch the Apollo 13 movie? They didn’t have a lot of systems running during their voyage, so I think current technology could handle short demo trips.
I don’t think they will fly such a trip, but if there was a need (ISS emergency), I think they would have a pretty good chance of successfully completing the trip.
If I were them I would fly the next flight and if all goes well then saddle up a “demo†flight with a pilot, some journalist and some “ordinary†but talented person…mix it up gender wise, make sure all look good on high def and well aim for the anniversary next year of John Glenn’s flight.
They won’t fly anyone except company employees until they have an escape system. At least I wouldn’t — it unduly complicates things from a regulatory and insurance standpoint.
your assumption that developing an ECLSS is “trivial†(equivalent to throwing a couple of SCUBA bottles in the module?) is (to say the least) troubling.
In what way? I’m not proposing scuba tanks for an ISS rendezvous mission — that would only have worked for the initial two-orbit flight. But I’m sure that Paragon could come up with something for no more than a few million and a few months, based on past performance for a few-day flight. It wouldn’t be luxurious, but you could come up with people for that camping trip, and it would be fine for lifeboat purposes. Why do you think otherwise?
Coastal Ron wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“Not trivial from a life or death situation, but not exactly something hard either. What it takes to keep a person alive is quite well knownâ€
Well known parameters, but packaging a system capable of meeting those parameters into a specific vehicle is anything but trivial.
“Paragon systems received CCDev money to build a compact generic system for spacecraft.â€
Are they going to deliver that generic system (as Rand implies) integrated specifically into a Dragon Vehicle “in a few months� I am going to guess the answer is no.
“But if all you’re going to do is a demo test, then I don’t think it would be difficult to pull together the equipment. My neighbor is a closed circuit rebreather diver, and his equipment keeps him alive for up to eight hours underwater.â€
There are few if any similarities between an underwater re-breather and an ECLSS system. The fact that you (and I guess others) think so is going to (if you get your way) get somebody needlessly killed (and, no, I am not being melodramatic; just accurate).
“And haven’t you watch the Apollo 13 movie? They didn’t have a lot of systems running during their voyage, so I think current technology could handle short demo trips.â€
Actually no, I have not watched the movie. I do however know people who worked the actual mission. You apparently have no idea the heroic (yeah, go ahead and make fun of that description) efforts that were required to keep that crew alive or how lucky everyone was that things turned out the way they did.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
“I’m not proposing scuba tanks for an ISS rendezvous mission — that would only have worked for the initial two-orbit flight.â€
Ok, now I am getting really “creeped outâ€. If you are being sarcastic please note (I am now going to have a cleaning bill for my nice Sunday White Shirt that I spit coffee all over).
Are you actually suggesting that SCUBA bottles (filled with what O2, Breathing Air?) are sufficient? How is pressure maintained? How about cabin thermal control? Does “your system†allow for launch/landing suits (if so do they get their – whatever the crew would be breathing – from the SCUBA tanks).
“But I’m sure that Paragon could come up with something for no more than a few million and a few monthsâ€
I would think Paragon would not like you signing them up for such missions. Have you checked with them to see if they agree with you?
“based on past performance for a few-day flight.â€
Based on what past performance?
This is not a serious discussion. Have a nice weekend.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 6:12 am
Uh, yes, really yes. That’s the idea and in the Age of Austerity, a good one for pressing on to BEO planning. That and tucking NASA under the wing of the DoD. That will come in time as well.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
“I’m suggesting that they don’t need a launch escape system.”
Yes they do. It’s a weak suggestion.
“It adds some level of safety, but it’s not essential…”
Yes it is essential- especially if you’re trying to sell investors on it– and sell seats on it as well. Good grief.
“The crew couches and life-support system are relatively trivial developments and could be ready in a few months.”
Trivial? Perhaps to a shill, but not to somebody who has to ride the rocket. Your cavilier attitude toward other people’s lives is alarming. Perhaps this is why Master Musk balks at riding his own vehicles. Your disregard for the general safety of human life and clear inability to comprehend the damaging impact the loss of crew would have on a struggling, commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole and the wary-eyed investor class is quite disturbing. In your own words: “Good Lord, you’re a idiot”— and by proposing poor ideas which rich investors would reject out of hand does little to expand that investor base. Desperate commercial space community shills such as yourself have no business– literally and figuratively–being anywhere close to the HSF policy making.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
“They won’t fly anyone except company employees until they have an escape system.”
Madness. Then it’s a company staffed by idiots- with shills to match. They won’t fly anyone, period, but your comments are right in sync with previous comments on this forum indicating a higher regard for hardware than for crews.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 12:57 am
“If I were them I would fly the next flight and if all goes well then saddle up a “demo†flight with a pilot, some journalist and some “ordinary†but talented person…mix it up gender wise, make sure all look good on high def and well aim for the anniversary next year of John Glenn’s flight.”
Yeah, repeating a Mercury/Gemini-styled flight 45 years after it was done would be a blast from the past and make a great PR splash– something Master Musk is good at. Having Dragon turn a profit, not so much. SpaceX will never fly anybody– but it’s savvy PR to keep dangling the idea out to there. At this point, there’s no economic rationale for investing millions into a commercial LEO ‘space pod’ designed for access to a space station increasingly starved for operational funding and destined for splash by the end of the decade. They’re a decade too late. The time for SpaceX to have lofted a crew even one person on a suborbital flight for the purposes you suggest- has long passed. We are just getting into the Age of Austerity. It’s too late now. They best stop stalling and start hauling cargo. The future for HSF is Orion.
@ DCSCA wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
I hope some day you will tell us all what your problem is specifically with SpaceX. Why not Boeing? After all they are doing the “same” thing.
Very weird.
Are you actually suggesting that SCUBA bottles (filled with what O2, Breathing Air?) are sufficient?
For a short flight, yes, with breathing air. It works underwater, why wouldn’t it work in a pressurized capsule, where you don’t even have to worry about nitrogen buildup?
How is pressure maintained?
How is pressure of what maintained? The Dragon? It is a pressurized capsule.
How about cabin thermal control?
Again, for a short-duration mission, that wouldn’t be a problem.
Does “your system†allow for launch/landing suits (if so do they get their – whatever the crew would be breathing – from the SCUBA tanks).
No suits needed. Just breathe through a standard regulator.
I would think Paragon would not like you signing them up for such missions.
I didn’t “sign them up” for anything. I simply expressed an informed opinion of their capabilities.
Based on what past performance?
Based on their past performance in developing life support systems.
Scuba tanks probably won’t work. Life support systems also handle humidity control and ammonia build up two things that a diver does not worry about.
However as part of CCdev1 paragon has developed and ground tested a life support system that can be installed in any commercial capsule. Given Dragon’s current life-support system was developed by paragon (Dragon has to be able transport live lab animal and be able to maintain a safe environment when docked to the ISS) and paragon also developed Orion’s life-support system. I doubt that Space X would choose to waste time developing one at this moment.
Anyway the limiting factor for dragon is lauch escape system and crew accomidations(seats, controls, ect.). Dragon is already presurised and built to maintain “safe” temperatures for the cargo. It current life support system can’t handle a person traveling in it, but it enough for lab animals and a life support capable of supporting people is currently available.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Ok. I am not going to get into discussing all the technical details in this forum. However, just so I am sure what you are advocating.
– You would launch the vehical with its initial pressure level (no pressure sensors or make up gas required) and assume that there would be no significant pressure diferentials over the duration of the flight (varioulsy described as hours or days).
– You would assume (over hours or days) that no thermal control is required
– You would have the passengers surviving on breathing air through standard diving breathing regulators (I will assume you mean the “full face mask type†that allows positive pressure breathing without holding something in your mouth and would allow radio contact with the ground).
– No abort system or launch/landing suits. I assume minimal restraints so if someone gets their neck broken when the main chutes deploy, well “they knew the jop was dangeous when they took itâ€.
Now one last question assuming your guinea pigs survived such a stunt, what would you have proved?
Scuba tanks probably won’t work. Life support systems also handle humidity control and ammonia build up two things that a diver does not worry about.
That wouldn’t have been a problem on the first short flight.
Joe,
Earlier you said that there are no BEO exploration missions planned. This is simply not true. Your antipathy towards the administration means you deliberately fail to recognize the stated aims of the administration’s policy. That there are goals. Their BEO objective is a trip to an asteroid in the mid-2020s, the systems used for which will be useful for a trip to Mars orbit in the 2030s.
Since there is no use for a HLV vehicle until the 2020s in their plans, building and maintaining a HLV system, at a cost of 2 billion a year, serves simply as a drain upon resources necessary to reach the goal outlined. We always have the ability to create a relatively affordable HLV in evolutions of the Atlas 5 and Delta 4, as recognized by the Augustine commission. You have your head in the parochial JSC shuttle sidemount world, but all aspects of space launch do not revolve around the Shuttle. There exist other launch systems that are suitable, more suitable even, for tasks than derivatives of the space shuttle. We are not losing the capability to build a HLV if we do not spend many billions to create one at this very moment in time.*
The plans to go to an asteroid, and then Mars, require funding to create missions systems necessary to meet that goal. This is the purpose of the exploration technology account, to fund the development of the necessary things for the goal. By devoting resources away from BEO mission development in order to meet the large expenditures necessary to immediately create and then sustain a HLV system, the decision to build a HLV, for the sole reason to prop up the Shuttle system and its beneficiaries, comes at the expense of the enactment of BEO exploration.
*In fact, by delaying acquisition of a SDHLV, we would be gaining the opportunity to pick a more beneficial path when we do require the resources to launch exploration missions, be that prospects for more affordable HLV systems if they are indeed more affordable, or a competitive servicing of demand by launch companies if it is realized that heavy lift is not an absolute necessity for exploration, as well as realizing the gain of not devoting budget resources to maintaining launch systems when there is nothing to launch.
***
The “backup” justification for an HLV is also bogus.
Funding for the HLV program has come at the expense of funding allocated to the commercial crew program. The immediate focus on a HLV creates the very problem it says it wants to solve.
The commercial crew program is not monolithic. It funds several competing entries each of which has a possibility of meeting its launch target. Delays in one do not necessarily impact another: the program serves as its own backup.
Some of these entries will use established launch vehicles like the Atlas 5, and so are less of a development risk than embarking on a new superlarge LV. The HLV is too but a new development, and so thus bears the same risk that its timely development will be delayed. There exist launch solutions, like the Delta 4 Heavy, that are capable of serving in the launch role for the Orion capsule, representing more developed product than a new LV project, and thus are more reliable candidates for the “backup” role if such a policy were an honest pursuit. The SDHLV does not bring any exceptional standard of assuredness to the table that does not otherwise exist.
It requires a larger total sum to bring online, so any actual budget shortfall threatens its successful timely operation. This creates the situation where it will cannibalize other worthwhile projects, like the BEO exploration technology, like it has for robotic exploration precursor missions, like funding for commercial crew, like future funding for science and climate missions.
The usefulness of such a SDHLV backup is nowhere near worth the price it will cost us for its real utility and the consequences of pursuing it. It is of negative value to the space program.
You want to tell that to Congress? They’re the ones who write the checks and are the ones you have to convince.
First BEO mission ought to be lunar orbit-preferably more than one, and for longer time frames before shooting for PLYMOUTH ROCK. The sooner the NEO mission gets done, lunar return (at least according to this administration) is back on the agenda. Lunar return as in boots on the ground. Charlie Bolden needs to make that clear: there will be lunar landings as part of this new program, but until someone with a higher pay grade than him says so as well, Congress won’t listen.
Said it before, and I’ll repeat: if POTUS last year at that “space summit” (more like preaching to the choir) that the lunar program was being restructured to make it more affordable and sustainable, with possiblities for missions to other solar system destinations as part of it, that would have had less controversy and more support on The Hill. There’s an old Adage in D.C., which some here seem to ignore: “The Administration proposes, but Congress disposes.”
“Your disregard for the general safety of human life and clear inability to comprehend the damaging impact the loss of crew would have on a struggling, commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole and the wary-eyed investor class is quite disturbing.”
I am sure glad that no airplane every crashes anymore, or trains, or automobiles, or ships sink. Because we all know if ANY of those other forms of transportation every crashed and killed a passenger wary-eyed investors would no longer invest in them.
You would launch the vehical with its initial pressure level (no pressure sensors or make up gas required) and assume that there would be no significant pressure diferentials over the duration of the flight (varioulsy described as hours or days).
The assumption was hours in this case.
You would assume (over hours or days) that no thermal control is required
Again, the assumption was hours.
You would have the passengers surviving on breathing air through standard diving breathing regulators (I will assume you mean the “full face mask type†that allows positive pressure breathing without holding something in your mouth and would allow radio contact with the ground).
No, just a regular diving reg. No biggie to pull it off momentarily to say something in a radio. You’re not underwater.
No abort system or launch/landing suits. I assume minimal restraints so if someone gets their neck broken when the main chutes deploy, well “they knew the jop was dangeous when they took itâ€.
Yes, that is the assumption. They are test pilots.
Now one last question assuming your guinea pigs survived such a stunt, what would you have proved?
Well, at a minimum, you’d have shut up* morons like “DCSCA,” who claim that SpaceX has never flown anyone, and therefore (yes, this is obviously logically impaired, but consider the source) never will. It would also prove out the system as a lifeboat, something for which we’ve been dependent on the Russians for the past decade.
*Obviously, because it’s a moron and a troll, it wouldn’t shut the creature up. It would simply raise the bar, saying, “SpaceX has never sent someone to the moon, and never will.”
Joe wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
“Ok. I am not going to get into discussing all the technical details in this forum. However, just so I am sure what you are advocating.”
I think you’re way over thinking this, and you’re trying to do a PDR on a thought exercise.
Besides, you don’t think you could devise a way to keep a person alive in a cargo version of Dragon on a short LEO flight? Don’t you have the ingenuity?
Paragon SDC “designed through PDR and manufactured and tested a high fidelity prototype of the core of the spacecraft’s Environmental Control and Life Support System in less than 10 months and with less than $1.5M of government investment.“. Sounds like they already have a pretty good idea what would be needed not only for a test flight, but a full crew system. And if $1.5M can pay for design, build and test, one production system shouldn’t cost too much. And, of course, they are already doing the ECS for the cargo version of Dragon.
But I look at this discussion as just a thought exercise, since I don’t think SpaceX will send someone up before they are ready to test a full-up crew system. But if NASA came to them and asked them to launch a rescue flight to the ISS, then yes, I think they could mount a successful one. I’d say the same for Boeing if they had their CST-100 as far along as Dragon.
@ Joe wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Commercial HSF won’t make much of an impressive debut to the world or investors with an ECS thrown together along the lines of Rube Goldberg as proposed Rand Simberg. Most likely a death trap as proposed. SpaceX’s future is in hauling cargo to the ISS and best they get on with it. SpaceX will never fly anyone chiefly because it’s not economically viable- it will never be profitable and at this point in time unwise to invest millions into a crude, crewed, LEO ‘space pod’ to access a space station on the downhill side of its lifetime, scheduled for splash by the end of the decade. A space station that’s facing increasing difficuity at securing operational funding in the Age of Austerity.
@ Rand Simberg wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
‘Scuba tanks probably won’t work. Life support systems also handle humidity control and ammonia build up two things that a diver does not worry about.’ “That wouldn’t have been a problem on the first short flight.”
Now you’re a flight surgeon. Your cavilier attitude toward other people’s lives is alarming. Your disregard for the general safety of human life and inability to comprehend the damaging impact the loss of crew would have on a struggling, commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole and the impact it would have on wary-eyed capital investors is quite disturbing. Desperate commercial space shills such as yourself have no business– literally and figuratively–being anywhere close to the HSF policy making.
The usefulness of such a SDHLV backup is nowhere near worth the price it will cost us for its real utility and the consequences of pursuing it. It is of negative value to the space program.
It is of positive value to the Shuttle political industrial complex however. I doubt there are very many who advocate the SDLV backup who do not have a personal economical stake in an SDLV. The argument isn’t merely bogus, it comes very close to being an outright lie.
Desperate commercial space shills such as yourself have no business– literally and figuratively–being anywhere close to the HSF policy making.
It isn’t shilling to advocate competitive procurement. Shilling is something you do for a particular launch vehicle. Most of the shilling we see is in favour of SDLV, and a little bit of it is in favour of Falcon 9, and curiously, Falcon 9 Heavy which – like SDLV – doesn’t even exist yet.
“SpaceX will never fly anyone chiefly because it’s not economically viable”
Falcon 9 – 50 million
Dragon capsule 48 million (proposed 10 use lifecycle)
7 seats @ 20 million – 140 million
Gosh you are right .. the math just doesn’t seem to work.
Coastal Ron wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 1:05 am
“I think you’re way over thinking this, and you’re trying to do a PDR on a thought exercise.â€
I am not sure if I should take “over thinking this†as a complement or an insult. Is there a reward for “under thinking”.
Actually I would say we are talking more a pre SRR level, but nevertheless in the post directly above yours Rand a gave very straight forward succinct answers to my questions. I disagree with him entirely (not for the first and I suspect – sadly – not for the last time). However I should note that (in spite of the disagreement) I admire him for having the “courage of his convictionsâ€. If he ever got someone to build the “Flying Kludge†he is proposing, I don’t doubt he would volunteer to be one of its first passengers.
Happily (for me and – whether he realizes it or not – for him) as near as I can tell Space X is not contemplating any such action.
Vladislaw wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Dragon has no viable, independenly verified ECS for crewed flight and cannot fly crewed missions as of now. Investors have no idea if it is a gem or a deathtrap. It’s not economically viable to invest millions into a LEO crude, crewed ‘space pod’ to access a space station increasingly battling for operational funding in the Age of Austerity and is slated for splash by the end of the decade. Americans don’t wan’t to pay for the turkey anymore. It represents past planning. By the time a safe, crewed Dragon got flying, if ever, it would be too late in the decade, redundant to Soyuz and never turn a profit. Soyuz is already flying and will ferry crews as the ISS winds down. SpaceX’s future is proving it can start hauling cargo- so they best get to it.
@Joe wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
There’s little to admire in the judgment of one who stubbornly insists the hardware is more important than the crews it would carry.
There’s little to admire in the judgment of one who stubbornly insists the hardware is more important than the crews it would carry.
Yes, unlike you, I stubbornly insist on reality.
DCSCA wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
“Dragon has no viable, independenly verified ECS for crewed flight”
You may want to revisit that comment, since Paragon has already tested a high fidelity prototype of their commercial crew ECLSS, which Dragon will use. And they did it for $1.5M under the CCDev program, so I guess they are not as expensive as some have been saying.
Here’s their press release, with pictures of the unit:
http://www.paragonsdc.com/docs/CCT-ARS%20Press%20Release.pdf
What Paragon is building will essentially be an Off-The-Shelf ECLSS for any spacecraft builder to buy. That is going to lower the cost of building future spacecraft, which I would think everyone wants.
C. Adelphia wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
“You may want to revisit that comment, since Paragon has already tested a high fidelity prototype of their commercial crew ECLSS, which Dragon will use. And they did it for $1.5M under the CCDev program, so I guess they are not as expensive as some have been saying.â€
You might want to look at the second page (of the two page press release to which you link) where it says:
“Partnering with five leading vehicle developers and sixfield-leading subcontractors, Paragon recently submitted a proposal in response to NASA’s CCDev2 solicitation. Under their proposed CCDev2 effort as well as other separately funded programs, Paragon will expand on the success of the CCT-ARS program in 2011 and build-out the other parts of the Environmental Control and Life Support System to provide the complete solution for their commercial crew transport customers.â€
What they are trying to produce is a basic requirements document (including verifications) and a parts/supplier list for customers to use to tailor to fit their individual vehicles. It’s a great idea and they seem to have made progress, but even they do not claim to have crossed the finish line. If they do (when the CCDev2 effort is completed) the customers will still have to develop (tailor) their individual systems. A very “success oriented schedule†might produce a prototype vehicle for testing sometime in the 2014-2015 timeframe.
I am not knocking what they are doing, I hope it works. But you are doing them no favors by over stating where the process stands. In the currently politically charged atmosphere you could put them in the situation where they have to “pay for with their @!! what you bought with your mouthâ€. Now would be a really good time to shut up and let the process run its course.
C. Adelphia wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
It bears ‘revisiting’ when they successfully launch, orbit and recover a crew — alive. Until then, it stands. SpaceX has flown nobody– and never will.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Then for your version of reality- a reality in which the hardware survives but the crews die- it bear repeating: Your caviler attitude toward other people’s lives is truly alarming. Your disregard for the general safety of human life and inability to comprehend the damaging impact the loss of crew would have on a struggling, commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole and the impact it would have on wary-eyed capital investors is quite disturbing. Desperate commercial space shills such as yourself have no business– literally and figuratively–being anywhere close to the HSF policy making. Get some help.
Joe wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
You’re an interesting contrast to DCSCA, whom I was responding to.
His statements say that no environmental systems exist.
You point out that they haven’t been completed.
Let’s just leave it at that for now, since both of you seem pretty passionate.
But regarding this statement:
“A very “success oriented schedule†might produce a prototype vehicle for testing sometime in the 2014-2015 timeframe.”
Considering that Soyuz is under contract through at least 2015, and that even SpaceX has said that their Dragon crew upgrade program would take 2-3 years, this guesstimate of yours doesn’t seem to be an impediment.
DCSCA wrote:
“Dragon has no viable, independenly verified ECS for crewed flight and cannot fly crewed missions as of now.”
As of right now SpaceX does not need or is required to have any flight hardware for crewed missions. Why? Because they are currently in the process of competing, against mutiple contractors, to provide that service for NASA. That is like saying Ford motor company doesn’t have an independantly verified tank for the US Army. If the Army wanted tanks and Ford won the bid, I am sure they could, for the right money, design and build whatever the government wants. You are once again putting the cart before the horse.
“Investors have no idea if it is a gem or a deathtrap.”
Investors bet on entrepreneurs, their track records and the future. One thing is guaranteed, no investor will ever invest one single dime in constellation.
Before something have the monikor “deathtrap” it actually has to cause some deaths. Now take the space shuttle, it killed 14 people, one person per nine flights on average. So anything using legacy shuttle hardare, like say constellation, would be closer to being a deathtrap that a product that has not been created or tested yet. AGAIN cart – horse.
“It’s not economically viable to invest millions into a LEO crude, crewed ‘space pod’ to access a space station increasingly battling for operational funding in the Age of Austerity and is slated for splash by the end of the decade.”
Since when has a “crude” product never been brought successfully to the market. Hell look at the first mobile phones. ( lol the brick)
Actually it is more likely to be slated for an extention into 2028.
“Americans don’t wan’t to pay for the turkey anymore. It represents past planning. By the time a safe, crewed Dragon got flying, if ever, it would be too late in the decade, redundant to Soyuz and never turn a profit.”
It is no wonder you do not publish your name, you are going to look so foolish because every statement like this you made has been faithfully archived by Mr. Foust for all to see in the coming years.
It is paced to surpase soyuz in both the number of passengers and undercut the price and the Russians are working on an upgrade so when Dragon does fly there may not even be a soyuz.
I really hope you enjoy the taste of crow… because man … if you stay on this blog, and keep using the same name, you are going to be living on it.
@C. Adelphia wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
@Joe wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Per Joe: “I am not knocking what they are doing, I hope it works. But you are doing them no favors by over stating where the process stands.”
Bravo! Well said. Enough w/t press releases and promises of ‘things to come. Stop talking, start flying and get some skin in the game.
@Vladislaw wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
“As of right now SpaceX does not need or is required to have any flight hardware for crewed missions.”
Which reaffirms it as a ticket to no place for near and mid term HSF planning. Soyuz is operational with a long and successful record and can ferry crews to a space station slated for splash by the end of the decade. It represents past planning and will struggle to maintain operational funding as the decade rolls on in the Age of Austerity. Dragon can schlepp-up the luggage and provide room service if they ever get around to going operational. Should they ever install, verify, test and fly a Drago with a viable ECS and actually risk flying a human crew which returns alive, this writer will cheerfully applaud and ask what took so long. But based on your own musings, don’t hold your breath.
C. Adelphia wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
“You point out that they haven’t been completed.â€
Check, they appear to be in the process of establishing a set of standards for ECLSS systems to be deployed on any number of different vehicles. Like I said a great idea. It is hard to tell from the press release but the CCT-ARS they refer to seems to have been a “table top†demonstrator for the system (it fits well with the $1.5 Million figure reported). That is not knocking what they accomplished as that is a critical interim step to producing a working ECLSS, but a good deal more work remains to be done (as the press release itself implies).
“Let’s just leave it at that for now, since both of you seem pretty passionate.â€
Passionate yes (I really believe in this stuff), and other than that I am like (I think) anyone else. Your polite to me, I am polite to you; otherwise not so much.
“But regarding this statement:
“A very “success oriented schedule†might produce a prototype vehicle for testing sometime in the 2014-2015 timeframe.â€
Considering that Soyuz is under contract through at least 2015, and that even SpaceX has said that their Dragon crew upgrade program would take 2-3 years, this guesstimate of yours doesn’t seem to be an impediment.â€
I did not mean to imply that it was an impediment, I was replying in the context of the assertion that ECSS development was trivial and could be done in a few months. I was actually glad to see that the CCDev process was not taking that approach.
“Most of the shilling we see is in favour of SDLV, and a little bit of it is in favour of Falcon 9, and curiously, Falcon 9 Heavy which – like SDLV – doesn’t even exist yet.”
I am going to call that one a lie. CR all by himself has advertised the falcon heavy, not even talking about the nine, more times than anyone has “shilled” for SDHLV.
I am going to call that one a lie. CR all by himself has advertised the falcon heavy, not even talking about the nine, more times than anyone has “shilled†for SDHLV.
Since the blogosphere is replete with SDLV shills, I find it hard to believe a single poster could outdo them, even if I did believe CR was a SpaceX shill, which I don’t. But the bottom line remains that all the pro-commercial side is arguing for is fair, competitive and redundant procurement, which is almost the exact opposite of shilling. Those arguing against competitive procurement have a mountain to climb, but they don’t even attempt to address the issues openly. To me that (among others things) suggests they know they are wrong. You don’t have to distort the facts or the question at hand if you have a solid and respectable case.
“Since the blogosphere is replete with SDLV shills, I find it hard to believe a single poster could outdo them,”
You said “we see.” Since you did not say otherwise the “we” means we here on this website.
“but they don’t even attempt to address the issues openly.”
I do. I am not they.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
“CR all by himself has advertised the falcon heavy, not even talking about the nine, more times than anyone has “shilled†for SDHLV.”
Too bad I don’t get any compensation, but then again companies that are looking for launchers in the Falcon 9 Heavy class already know what their choices are, and don’t listen to you or me blabbering on this blog.
So why do I mention Falcon 9 Heavy so many times? Because Falcon 9 Heavy lifts 70,000 lb to LEO for $95M, or $1,357/lb ($2,992/kg). That makes Falcon 9 Heavy the least expensive way to get payload to space out of any existing or near-term launchers.
Falcon 9 Heavy is also scheduled for it’s first flight out of Vandenberg AFB next year, so Falcon 9 Heavy is real hardware, not mythical like Liberty, SDHLV or even SLS.
And since Falcon 9 Heavy uses the same boosters cores as used on Falcon 9, every Falcon 9 launch validates their design, increases overall reliability, all the while keeping costs lower than anyone else in the World.
That’s why I talk about Falcon 9 Heavy – because it meets my criteria of lowering the cost to access space.
I also talk about Orbital Sciences, ULA and Boeing for their respective products, but apparently you don’t remember those, but only remember your technological nemesis, Falcon 9 Heavy.
There, nine more references to Falcon 9 Heavy (make that ten), and two for it’s smaller sibling. Thanks for the opportunity to bring that up…
I do. I am not they.
Very well, how then do you justify a procurement process that is unfair, noncompetitive or not redundant? What necessity or major advantage justifies overruling the judgment of the market and NASA’s mandate to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space”?
“What necessity or major advantage justifies overruling the judgment of the market and NASA’s mandate to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of spaceâ€?”
CAPS
If you can show us why that requires an HLV and specifically an SDLV you will have taken a sizeable step towards making your case. You would still have to demonstrate that the risk in the coming 100 years is large enough to take away money from dealing with other threats or good causes (world peace, eradication of world hunger etc) because 100 years from now the private sector will have developed the ability to deal with the threat of asteroids regardless of what the US government does.
Let’s see your evidence.