Congress, NASA

More questions about NASA priorities

For the second day in a row, NASA administrator Charles Bolden made the trip to Capitol Hill to discuss the agency’s FY2012 budget request, this time to members of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. During the lengthy hearing (nearly three and a half hours, without breaks) members again quizzed Bolden on the agency’s priorities in an era when the agency’s fiscal resources may be mismatched to its plans.

“Last year at this time we were in the early stages of what turned out to be a very lengthy, contentious debate about the future direction of NASA’s human spaceflight program,” subcommittee chairman Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) said in his opening statement. The passage of the NASA authorization act last year was supposed to end that debate, but now, he said, the question is whether NASA can implement the act. “No amount of authorizing language can hold NASA to a particular goal or commitment if that language isn’t backed up by the budget.” He added that the funding levels in the FY12 budget for the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) “virtually guarantee that NASA won’t have core launch and crew capabilities in place by 2016,” the deadline in the authorization act.

Bolden repeated previous statements that NASA was funding all the programs included in the authorization act, but that the agency had to make “some difficult choices” because of the current fiscal environment. “Reductions were necessary in some areas so that we can invest in the future while living within our means.” He reiterated this during questioning by Wolf, saying that when the agency’s FY11 budget proposal was submitted just 13 months ago “the world was different, and our fiscal situation was really different.” Bolden said NASA put its highest priority on spending on safely flying out the shuttle, followed by providing safe access to the ISS over the next decade through commercial cargo and crew programs. “If we lose the International Space Station, we’re dead in the water” in therms of future human space exploration plans, he said later in the hearing.

Nonetheless, committee members sought to find ways to adjust those choices in spending priorities. Several asked about potential duplication of Earth sciences work between NASA other agencies, such as NOAA and USGS; Bolden said that there was no evidence of such duplication, citing a October 2009 GAO report that found no evidence of duplication of NASA programs with those of other agencies. Later, asked about any excess or underutilized properties that NASA could sell to raise money, Bolden said that a facilities master plan is being updated to identify such properties.

Committee members did promise some relief in one area, though: the 2010 appropriations language that prevents NASA from terminating any element of Constellation, even those not aligned with the new direction given in the authorization act. “One thing I hope we can do is to, in one of the short-term CRs we’re dealing with, is get you some immediate clarification on that,” Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) said.

Bolden tried to walk a fine line in regards to current spending tied to Constellation programs, as members of Congress cited a report from NASA’s Inspector General (IG) earlier this year warning of wasted spending. “I disagree that we are wasting money,” he said, saying that they have tried to focus spending on those programs on efforts that could be applicable to future efforts, but made it clear he wants the language removed. “I do agree with the IG that [with] the soon-as-possible relief from the restriction of terminating the Constellation programs, the better off we’d be.”

Wolf also said he would work to preserve a provision in the HR 1 spending bill for FY11 the House passed last month that would prevent NASA and OSTP from spending any money on cooperation with China. Later in the hearing Wolf spoke for several minutes about Chinese human rights abuses, and went so far as to predict that the Chinese government would fall in a democratic uprising like those taking place in the Middle East. “I will fight to the death for this language,” he said.

Late in the hearing, Culberson asked about the planetary sciences Decadal Survey, scheduled for release late Monday, and whether NASA had funding to support top missions identified in the survey. He was making a push in particular for a Europa Orbiter mission, a mission identified in the last survey and, he believes, will be a top priority in the new survey. Bolden said they agency will look at the missions identified in the survey and see how they match up with projected funding. (A Space News article published after the hearing, though, suggests funding for a Europa mission will be hard to come by given current budget projections.)

One minor bit of news that Bolden made at the hearing regarded the disposition of the shuttle orbiters once the fleet is retired. Asked about this by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), the ranking member of the full committee, Bolden said NASA was planning to make an announcement on April 12, the 30th anniversary of the launch of STS-1. (Dicks also used his question to play up the bid by Seattle’s Museum of Flight; another subcommittee member, Rep. Steve Austria (R-OH), made a pitch for the Museum of the Air Force in Dayton.)

58 comments to More questions about NASA priorities

  • amightywind

    If we lose the International Space Station, we’re dead in the water

    This mad reasoning escapes me. Kill the ISS and hand a tiny fraction of the savings over to Bigelow and Boeing. A modest follow on station will be more consistent with the very modest science goals of ISS, and the potentially profitable goal of space tourism. Kill ISS and NASA will find all of the resources it needs. The ISS problem may be self-correcting. I am confident that once the shuttle is ended ISS will be very vulnerable to the failure of major components. NASA will gradually shut down major subsystems until a new president puts it out of its misery.

    CRs we’re dealing with, is get you some immediate clarification on that

    My hope is that the program is restructured and reconstituted, and the Plymouth Rock proposal pursued. It is the only logical way forward.

  • If Bolden stressed how near we were to having human access via a Human Rated Atlas or Delta this Congress might give him another year or two to build the heavy lift.

    As a political ploy, it wouldn’t detract much money from heavy lift development (if any at all) and make it clear to Congress and congressional constituents that the USA will be putting human in space in 2016 just not on a heavy lift until 2018 or 2020. It also dove-tails nicely into his commercial plans by making certain a domestic rocket can carry almost anything the commercial crowd can want to throw into space.

    I

  • Thanks for the coverage. Is there archived video of this hearing???

  • common sense

    Thank you Gen. Bolden to put it in their faces as it is. It must feel real good. I wish I could see and be part of this. Godspeed sir!

    “Rep. John Culberson (R-TX)”

    A little hope finally? Come on you can do it.

    “Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) ”

    As moronic as ever. “Fight to the death”? How do you deal with people with such a very low IQ? This clown does not understand anything about China. He cannot even see that all the party is doing in China is precisely to prevent this. Their “open market capitalism”. China is in transition but it’ll take another couple of millennia. It’s as fast as they can do it. China will suppress any revolution, you better believe this. And a revolution in China would go against US interests. What a dumb moron! Sorry no other way to qualify such things.

  • Scott Bass

    Again….by the time they figure out what they are going to do and actually build something, constellation could have been fully implemented, perhaps a decade late but at least the infrastructure would have been built. The road we are going down does not guarantee anything and we will still be having this same conversation in 5 years

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 11:38 am

    “This mad reasoning escapes me”

    You mean “reasoning escapes you”. Right?

    “My hope is that the program is restructured and reconstituted, and the Plymouth Rock proposal pursued. It is the only logical way forward.”

    My hope is that LMT really tells why they came up with Plymouth… That’d be fun to hear.

  • common sense

    @ Scott Bass wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    “Again….by the time they figure out what they are going to do and actually build something, constellation could have been fully implemented, perhaps a decade late but at least the infrastructure would have been built.”

    Yeah sure. Look up in the sky there is this constellation, Perseus, with a pi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_Persei

    “The road we are going down does not guarantee anything and we will still be having this same conversation in 5 years”

    What would Constellation guarantee? Please enlighten us.

  • Scott Bass

    No sense debating a program that has already been killed with people that can’t see the value of it. I was just saying at least it was a firm plan, the space station did not come in on time or budget either but it did get built finally…..the constellation project would have too and it would have been the envy of the world. Now we got squat

  • Matt Wiser

    Charlie Boden must recite the old Gladiator’s saying before going into these hearings “We who are about to die salute you.” He knows that he’s going into the Lion’s Den with both this subcommittee and the Sci/Tech committee. Both of which have people who are lukewarm at best, and some openly hostile-to the Administration’s NASA policies. He’ll eventually get most of what he wants, but watch for Earth Science to take a hit-and get the money sent over to MPCV/Orion and HLV. Several congresscritters have said they’d be in favor of such a diversion. (they see Earth Science/Climate Change as duplication of what NOAA does)

  • Aberwys

    A flagship mission on the order of Voyager would be inspiring to the next generation. Especially Europa, with the potential for larger than microbe sized lifeforms beneath the ice.

    Very inspiring, hope they get it!

  • Aberwys

    As for why Plymouth Rock, wow, doesn’t everyone who post here know why?

    …Necessity is always the mother of invention…staying afloat in Littleton, CO….

  • @ Scott Bass wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    “Again….by the time they figure out what they are going to do and actually build something, constellation could have been fully implemented, perhaps a decade late but at least the infrastructure would have been built.”

    Oh please,
    The Constellation Project started with most of the building blocks existing as flight proven hardware. And yet they still managed to squander $10 BILLION dollars without launching a single complete rocket. They failed to replace the shuttle in a timely manner, leaving us begging rides from the Russians. The only part of the project that wasn’t a complete failure, from the prime contractors point of view, was the immense amount of money they gorged themselves on.

    There was simply no choice but to gut that pig. The cost to this country in humiliation is probably greater than the billions pissed away. There should be heads rolling and congressional hearings to figure out who’s to blame and make sure this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the incestuous relationships between congress and the contractors bears a lot of the guilt, so the problem won’t be addressed.

    Again, it’s the American taxpayers who are the losers here.

  • wodun

    It would be rather foolish to get rid of the ISS right now. Our international partners are beginning to pull their weight and are relying less on us to do everything. This should allow us to work on some of the technology demonstrations that will allow us to get out of LEO.

    Also, if we pulled out of the ISS, there is no guarantee that that money would stay with NASA. We already have Wieners that want to take money from NASA for pet projects and there are some on the right who would look at pulling out of the ISS as a way to lower spending.

    I am thankful that Obama decided on his own to cut some science missions, this way people can’t pit left/right vs earth sciences/hsf (not that any cuts make me happy). Hopefully, those cuts will allow NASA to focus on other science missions and not have that money disappear into the void of the general fund.

    What should NASA’s priorities be? In the short term, shortening the gap via ccdev should be the main priority. Super heavy lift has a certain cool factor but its time is not right now. However, we shouldn’t put SHLV development off for too long. Exploitation is about economies of scale and a SHLV will help create economies of scale.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Exploitation is about economies of scale and a SHLV will help create economies of scale.

    That’s very doubtful. What would it launch? Propellant is the primary affordable payload, and that could be done with smaller launchers too. That allows you to get very high launch rates, which is another form of economies of scale. The US has an enormous overcapacity for providing launch services.

  • tu8ca wrote:

    The Constellation Project started with most of the building blocks existing as flight proven hardware. And yet they still managed to squander $10 BILLION dollars without launching a single complete rocket. They failed to replace the shuttle in a timely manner, leaving us begging rides from the Russians.

    To nitpick the sequence of events.

    Bush announced the Shuttle cancellation on January 14, 2004, when he proposed his Vision for Space Exploration. A couple weeks later, NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe appeared before the Senate Science Committee to provide details. At that time, he projected a minimum four-year window (2010-2014) in which we’d rely on the Russians. He’s already approached Russia about flying astronauts on Soyuz rockets during the interim.

    If you watch the video of the meeting (Click here for the link and related article), the Senators were openly skeptical that it would be done by 2014. Senator Nelson suggested it might be “four, five, six years later.”

    And most of them said the budget for this project was way too low.

    So the “begging rides from the Russians” began long before they “failed to replace the shuttle in a timely manner.” That was part of the strategy from the beginning.

  • NASA Fan

    @ Matt Wiser

    Obama has already wacked a couple of Earth Science missions in his 2012 budget proposal.

    http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110225-climate-missions-nasa-budget.html

    Seems he isn’t waiting for the Congresscritters to do the cutting , he’s preempting them.

    And these were Earth Decadal missions. Not sure why they are called decadal missions (there are about 12 such missions in the decadal roadmap), because by the time the first two get launched, a decade will have passed from when the report came out.

    Never enough money for NASA.

  • common sense

    @Scott Bass wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    “No sense debating a program that has already been killed with people that can’t see the value of it.”

    I worked on Constellation. Did you?

    “I was just saying at least it was a firm plan,”

    No it was NOT. Come on educate yourself. No money for Altair and no money for Ares V. A proposed Ares I fielded when ISS was supposed to be decommissioned! Is that a firm plan to you?

    “the space station did not come in on time or budget either but it did get built finally…..”

    So what?

    “the constellation project would have too and it would have been the envy of the world. Now we got squat”

    The envy of the world??? Man you really know what the world want! No wonder why you like Constellation so much. 9th grader here?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    “.the constellation project would have too and it would have been the envy of the world.”

    it is hard to see why.

    By the time it flew Cx would have taken 1970’s technology and pushed it into the 2020’s…in terms of the rocket and the capsule would have like the shuttle be a tribute to the notion of keeping old electronics flying way past their prime.

    I’ve never understood why spending 20-50 billion to redo Gemini…which cost less then 5 billion in todays dollars for the entire program…was a good idea.

    Whittington at least on his forum states the real reason…his notion of “American chest thumping exceptionalism”…but other then a grade school game played by neo toughs its hard to see the value in the program.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Scott Bass

    We would have never reached the moon in 69 if your attitudes had been prevalent….naysayers doom dreams, you say you worked on constellation, I can believe that

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    I was just saying at least it [Constellation] was a firm plan,…

    And creating commercial crew transportation system for LEO is not a firm plan? Congress put it in the law, and they have been allocating money, so it’s about as firm as Constellation was.

    But I think what you really mean is that it isn’t a “firm plan” to go beyond LEO. But it is a firm plan to make LEO more accessible.

    …the space station did not come in on time or budget either but it did get built finally…

    The big difference here is that the ISS became a functioning space station as soon as the first crew was established in 2000.

    For Constellation, pieces and parts were going to be constructed over decades, but the payoff for Constellation (and the only reason for Ares I/V) did not come until the final pieces were in place.

    That date was supposed to be in the early 2020’s, but had been slipping out to the mid 2030’s. That’s a long time to be waiting around for something to happen, and it’s no wonder there was virtually no public outcry when Constellation was cancelled – there was nothing the public ever saw of it, so there was nothing to miss.

    I think the important lesson here is one that many of us have been saying, which is that space exploration needs to be an outgrowth of our capabilities, not a 100% special project.

    For instance, there was no business case for Orion, Ares I or Ares V without the Moon mission. That is a lot of specialized infrastructure to lock up in a multi-decades program, especially during economic recessions.

    The ISS has shown visible public progress since 2000, which is likely one of the reasons it has endured, even after the Columbia accident threatened the continuation of the station.

    …the constellation project would have too and it would have been the envy of the world.

    That above all would be the stupidest reason to do it. I don’t want my tax dollars spent to impress the world, I want it spent to achieve a result. Spending money foolishly only tells the world you are foolish. Try to be more imaginative…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 11:39 am

    “We would have never reached the moon in 69 if your attitudes had been prevalent…”

    we would have never reached the Moon in 69 if the attitude and management displayed by the Cx folks had been tolerated then. The folks in the 60’s could not put up with goofy notions, they had a deadline.

    The Cx folks TO THIS DAY cannot answer such basic questions as “is it cheaper to recover the first stage or not”…

    Thats goofy

    Robert G. Oler

  • tu8ca

    @Robert G. Oler
    “we would have never reached the Moon in 69 if the attitude and management displayed by the Cx folks had been tolerated then. The folks in the 60′s could not put up with goofy notions, they had a deadline.”

    Roger, you are absolutely right. Here is a short interview with General Sam Phillips, Apollo Program Manager.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnZrnhLxae4

    He talks about becoming ruthless and firing not only NASA people but having contractor people fired too. It’s a simple fact of life that everyone who works in the private sector knows. You have to fire people sometimes, or your business fails.

  • vulture4

    I worked on Shuttle for 23 years and Constellation as well the past three. Although it would have accomplished nothing to speak out publicly, I’ve argued privately from the start that Constellation would fail because of its extremely high cost, obsolete technology and, most important, its lack of meaningful strategic objectives. It seems to have been started because of nostalgia. Few of my co-workers even knows why we went to the moon; Apollo wasn’t a quest to explore, it was a substitute for nuclear war, diverting ideological conflict into a channel that did not lead to world destruction.

    But times have changed. The goal of ISS is also to avoid war, this time by serving as a catalyst for trust and cooperation among the major powers. That’s why it was finally funded only when the Russians joined. I sat in the LCC with a Russian during a launch. How can you start a war when you get to know people and realize they are no different from us?

    Obviously we should invite China to join the ISS program. It is what China wants; not to dominate the world but to be “join the club” of the world’s leading nations. It’s what the ISS program needs, a new partner with deep pockets and big rockets. And it is what the US should want. A military confrontation between the US and China is currently the greatest conceivable threat to near-term human survival, and there is no guarantee that the US would be the stronger combatant.

  • common sense

    @ Scott Bass wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 11:39 am

    “We would have never reached the moon in 69 if your attitudes had been prevalent….naysayers doom dreams, you say you worked on constellation, I can believe that”

    You know this goes to show how little you actually know. The situation in 69 is the same as today’s? The program that put astronauts on the Moon started kind of a little earlier than 69 did it not? Any idea of the geopolitical climate back then? Who are we trying to impress today with Constellation? Trying to show the world that our technology is immensely superior to that of thugs in caves?

    See the naysayers are those who cannot fathom that the US is based on its entrepreneurs.Those who say that there cannot be a market for space activities of any kind. Those who say that the government is responsible for spending billions to make sure we are the “envy” of the rest of the world.

    The rest of the world does not give a hoot about Constellation. The rest of the world is concerned, guess what, with global warming and other little things that are difficult to understand obviously. Put 2 astronauts on the Moon for a few hours and then what, WHAT? Play golf. Been there done that. Now if you tell me that someone will fly Tiger Woods to the Moon so he can hit the ball… It’d be a great legacy to Shepard. Until then…

  • Scott Bass

    Coastal Ron…… I do agree with most of your sentiments but it seems everyone believes that Constellation could not be transformed…. I still believe the moon and beyond was the correct path……did it need a major over haul … A time out, yeah it did…… But just to abandon the whole thing without a clear way forward was a major mistake

  • common sense

    @ vulture4 wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    I believe I disagree with you when I think you say you’d have liked to keep Shuttle alive but you’ve often shown to me great common sense. Thank you. It is nice to know that I disagree with people who can have their act together.

    For example I don’t think there actually is a threat for a US-China conflict. Should we make sure it does not happen? Absolutely. Therefore it is important that both viewpoints, yours (?) and I, be stated. I’d rather be right but if I am wrong I’d rather have some people make sure of the results.

    Constellation by Griffin was “my way or the high way”. Ares or nothing. Since there was no possible dissent today we have… nothing.

    Shuttle ought to retire with dignity. Constellation ought to be cancelled. What better testament to Shuttle than actual routine service to LEO be it with Dreamchaser or even a capsule? What better testament to NASA ingenuity than to have commercially developed routes to LEO, the Moon and beyond? What better testament to ISS than a few Bigelow stations?

    NASA has a bright future in spite of itself and most of all in spite of Congress. It is not LEO, it is not BEO. It certainly is not big useless rockets. It is everything else but NASA ought to find out where it can be of better service today.

    How about a little Sci-Fi? The Freedom spacecraft, Nautilus class, is orbiting Mars while the Bold-Eagle landed on Phobos for the first remote observation/exploration of Mars. The year? 2030… The craft made it in 3 months with a CASMIR-v5 engine. Most technologies were developed by landing craft on NEOs and the Moon from 2015 till today. Commercial services were provided to assemble the craft in Earth orbit where crews would rest in Bigelow stations… Etc. Impossible? I don’t know. You tell me.

  • VirgilSamms

    “A military confrontation between the US and China is currently the greatest conceivable threat to near-term human survival,”

    “The goal of ISS is also to avoid war, this time by serving as a catalyst for trust and cooperation among the major powers.”

    I have to disagree. A long period comet of moderate size would pack the explosive force of several times the combined nuclear arsenals of all nations. The effect of this impact is hard to imagine- and depends on where it hits. If it incited volcanic activity by hitting the edge of tectonic plate it could be another permian extinction that killed 95 % of all life on earth. The best possible outcome would be a super nuclear winter with darkness for decades that kills plant life and starves most of the animal life on the planet to death.

    A much bigger threat for humanity to combine against, in my opinion. For those who scoff at the impact threat, I strongly suggest they watch “The Road.” It is a very good approximation of the best possible outcome of a major impact.

    A big comet over a 100 km’s in diameter would kill everything. Everything. And there are around 70,000 of them just in the Kuiper belt. There are more in the Oort cloud where long period comets come from. A small one could start a nuclear war by exploding over a city. It might not happen for a thousand years. The thing is, it will happen inevitably, and it is random and could happen tomorrow.

  • common sense

    @ VirgilSamms wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    You know I don’t think any one is disputing the not-if-but-when nature of an impact. But in what way is an HLV going to save us? In what way Ares V or Sidemount is going to save us? Show us all including Congress a plan and you might have a case. Until then…

  • wodun

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Exploitation is about economies of scale and a SHLV will help create economies of scale.

    That’s very doubtful. What would it launch? Propellant is the primary affordable payload, and that could be done with smaller launchers too. That allows you to get very high launch rates, which is another form of economies of scale. The US has an enormous overcapacity for providing launch services.

    Bigelow has stated that a SHLV would allow for exponentially bigger expandables. A SHLV would also be useful in putting large pieces of mining equipment on the lunar surface.

    wodun wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 3:49 am

    Super heavy lift has a certain cool factor but its time is not right now. However, we shouldn’t put SHLV development off for too long.

    I think SHLV will play a role eventually but we are not ready for one yet.

    If you want to say that SHLV will never be useful, then I would disagree. If you say that SHLV is not useful at this specific moment, I would agree.

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    I still believe the moon and beyond was the correct path…

    I think the Moon will be very valuable and useful at some point too, once we can afford travel beyond LEO. But until then, it’s just another place on our ‘to do’ list in space.

    …did it need a major over haul … A time out, yeah it did…

    For major programs like Constellation, I think you have to go back to the reason for doing it, and the previous Congress decided that the need was not eminent. Because of that, they felt OK in canceling it.

    But just to abandon the whole thing without a clear way forward was a major mistake.

    When you make statements like that, you make it seem like going to the Moon is a national imperative. It’s not, so stop pretending it is.

    In reality, during these 40 years since Apollo, we only had another Moon mission on the books for 5 years – that’s not very long. And except for Bush 43, no other President (or Congress) has seen the need to return to the Moon.

    The Moon will wait until we return, and not going to the Moon is not holding us back from doing anything.

    But if you disagree, fine, go talk with Speaker of the House Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama, and have them add a Moon program to the national budget plan. Let me know how that works out…

  • pathfinder_01

    Wodun, you could also do the same things with an Atlas phase II or EELV derived HLV. A HLV does not have to be shuttle derived.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Bigelow has stated that a SHLV would allow for exponentially bigger expandables.

    I doubt he said exponentially bigger (since I assume he knows what exponential means), but he has certainly shown bigger concepts. A Sea Dragon could launch even bigger ones, but what’s the point? Inflatables allow you to launch huge modules on EELVs (which already have fairings bigger than a truck and can accommodate even larger ones).

    There is absolutely no need for an HLV, or even just a very strong advantage. And there would have to be a very strong advantage to overrule the judgment of the market. At the same time there is an enormous disadvantage, which is that it would take away funding for development of cheap lift. And unlike HLV that would really be a game changer. I believe it is the only thing that stands between us and 1) substantial commercial manned spaceflight and 2) large scale government funded exploration.

    A SHLV would also be useful in putting large pieces of mining equipment on the lunar surface.

    You can do that with EELVs to. And EELVs already exist, which means you could spend the money you were going to spend on development and operation of an HLV on development and construction of mining equipment instead. You are making the same invalid argument that was made for Ares I. It was supposed to support the ISS, but if they continue to build it, there won’t be any money to continue the ISS until the time Ares I is operational.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Wodun, you could also do the same things with an Atlas phase II or EELV derived HLV.

    Or EELV Phase 1, which I would like to see, but which can be left safely to the market. Or even existing EELVs in combination with propellant transfer, even just storable propellant.

    A HLV does not have to be shuttle derived.

    Was he saying the HLV would have to be Shuttle derived? I think SHLV means Super Heavy Lift Vehicle.

  • Scott Bass

    Coastal Ron “When you make statements like that, you make it seem like going to the Moon is a national imperative. It’s not, so stop pretending it is.”

    Ron, it does seem like a losing battle when you run in to people that are for exploration but will slice and dice you for thinking the way I do….. Which is a hard position to defend when you think with your heart……I do think it is imperative to build the infrastructure now for beo, not because of what we know but because of what we don’t . I have done a lot of work for the NASA educational outreach program trying to inspire young kids in the virtues of exploration for explorations sake, The money spent on exploration really is so small a percentage of our national budget and I do believe we could afford to do more, but you are right, something would have to convince congress and the president which does not seem to be in the cards. If you spend some time talking to children about issues like this it becomes a very simple thing, obviously they do not take into account economics etc…..but the purity of thought about what we should be doing comes through loud and clear. Everyone would do well to listen every now and then……it works pretty well with all the complicated issues of our time.

  • Dan Woodard

    “For example I don’t think there actually is a threat for a US-China conflict. ”

    This wasn’t my idea, it was posed by a Chinese friend. He’s worried. China has at once great admiration for the US (they forget the Korean War but remember the Flying Tigers!) and at the same time they resent US attitudes toward Taiwan and what they perceive as the intrusion of the US into domestic policy, and US military power near their coasts. It could go either way. Collaboration can help to diffuse such tensions.

    “A big comet over a 100 km’s in diameter would kill everything.”

    I agree, but the threat is of low probability (at least in the short term) due to the protective effect of Jupiter and it will be some time before the technology to deflect a body of this size is available. I agree this should be a goal, but I don’t think Constellation technology will lead to it.

    I agree the vasimir engine has potential, as do several other new technologies, most critically fully reusable launch systems. I think the focus of NASA might best be research and development rather than “exploration”. Today there is no need to go there “because it is hard”, as Kennedy said. Today we need to concentrate on developing technology that makes it easy, so that people can go frequently, in significant numbers, at feasible cost, for productive goals. We don’t need to make spaceflight spectacular. We need to make it routine.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dan Woodard wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 10:35 am

    We don’t need to make spaceflight spectacular. We need to make it routine.

    Hear, hear!

    The reason every expedition NASA wants to undertake is so expensive, is that it seems to start with the phrase “First we build a huge rocket”.

    If you change that phrase to “After moving our expedition cargo & crew to LEO on commercial carriers…”, those missions can be started quicker, and for less money.

    The cargo part is already in place, and the crew part will be there soon. Once that happens, the rationale for government-built, government-run rockets goes away, and NASA can start affording space exploration again.

    My $0.02

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 9:18 am

    I do think it is imperative to build the infrastructure now for beo, not because of what we know but because of what we don’t.

    It’s hard to build for the unknown, and it’s really expensive too.

    I guess I come at the issue from a different perspective, which is some ways would resemble a pyramid. In this analogy, the most routine and easy functions are those things at the bottom of the pyramid, and the hardest ones are at the top.

    Today that pyramid is tall enough to reach LEO and the ISS, but not too far past. The foundations for the ISS are still shaky, especially in regards to crew, since we’re reliant on one country (Russia) and one system (Soyuz) to keep crew in space.

    Worldwide we have the capability to put ISS-sized chunks of space hardware into LEO, so that part has a very solid foundation. But until we get two or more crew providers going, the crew portion will always be one accident or international incident from going away.

    In this analogy, the Apollo program was not built as a pyramid, but as a very tall spire, which reached it intended height, but only at great cost and little support between the top and bottom.

    I think once we get two or more crew providers for LEO in place, the height of the pyramid can be easily increased because of the solid base that exists up to LEO. To go beyond LEO could be done with existing launchers, or bigger if merited. But if something goes wrong with the BEO part (funding goes away, mission failure, etc.), the LEO foundation, which is supported by it’s own base of need, will be the fallback.

    Going BEO before we have that solid LEO foundation risks our entire space eco-system, and I don’t think that merits the risk – there is no national imperative that demands it like what drove Apollo.

    I think we’re 5 years away from that solid LEO crew foundation, so I guess I see BEO activities ramping up after that point. It’s more a matter of timing and preparation than anything, and not because I don’t see BEO as worthwhile, because I definitely do. I just want to make sure that when we go BEO the next time, we’re going there routinely, and not for one-off stunts.

  • Aberwys

    OK, after reading more about Europa, I say _this_ is a melting pot of game-changing techology, making SMD happy and wowing the public. There’s potential for a liquid water ocean beneath the ice and critters.

    IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM–a moon, with a shell of water ice and a heart of an ocean that can support life.

    Why aren’t we hearing more about this? This is a spherical Antarctica with electrons!

    Maybe the moon we should be visiting is Europa not ours. There appears to be much more water there.

    So, put the cash into making super-rad hard electronics, novel propulsion so we won’t be plutonium dependent (hehe…I like the sound of that) and go!

  • common sense

    @ Scott Bass wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 9:18 am

    “Ron, it does seem like a losing battle when you run in to people that are for exploration but will slice and dice you for thinking the way I do…..”

    Scott, this is what it is all about. Slice and dice until you reach the raw material of your proposal. Ever defended a budget to anyone? Think about it. Even your strongest supporters would do you good to slice and dice so that next time you head up for budget you will be ready.

    “Which is a hard position to defend when you think with your heart……”

    Where do you think that your heart will lead you if you do not have some more earth-grounded support?

    “I do think it is imperative to build the infrastructure now for beo, not because of what we know but because of what we don’t .”

    And a lot of people think the same. You seem to think that Constellation was the way forward. As a former participant I can tell you it was not. A lot of NASA personnel would tell you the exact same thing. Why? Because it was going nowhere. Did you read the Augustine Committee report? If not I strongly suggest you do and set aside partisan politics and well your heart for a while.

    “I have done a lot of work for the NASA educational outreach program trying to inspire young kids in the virtues of exploration for explorations sake, ”

    So are you saying that a program such as Constellation that bankrupted HSF at NASA and could bankrupt NASA as a whole is a worthy inspiration to your kids? Id this what you are teaching them? To go for the unaffordable?

    “The money spent on exploration really is so small a percentage of our national budget and I do believe we could afford to do more, but you are right, something would have to convince congress and the president which does not seem to be in the cards.”

    It is moot. It does not matter that we could pay for it in a month using more of our revenues. The point is WE ARE NOT. Congress is only up for theatrics. Does it ever occur to you that if Congress really, and I mean really wanted to go for it they could open the cash gates? What do you think? Why do you think they don’t? Come on heart is good but brain is better.

    “If you spend some time talking to children about issues like this it becomes a very simple thing, obviously they do not take into account economics etc…..”

    So are you saying we ought to have children in charge? Or that we all ought to think like children when we propose our ideas to Congress? How about growing up? How about teaching your children how to grow up? Not to dream about what cannot be done…

    “but the purity of thought about what we should be doing comes through loud and clear. Everyone would do well to listen every now and then……it works pretty well with all the complicated issues of our time.”

    You have a very childish approach to the problems. Believe me, or not, if you ever try to defend a budget like this to anyone you are sure to fail. Period. You accuse me to be a naysayer. See some time ago I was a child too. I believed in inspiration. I worked darn hard to be where I went. And I worked on Constellation. So I was probably doing a lot more work that you will ever do to reach that goal of yours. In the end? Constellation is cancelled because it is too expensive. So I would like to tell you quite abruptly what I think of those people who inspire you without saying the truth but I would most likely be moderated. Any regret? Nope. Actually well I’ll leave it to your imagination.

  • Scott Bass

    I liked the pyramid analogy Ron, let’s hope the best for spacex and hope they have better luck than the orbital folks had…………..also it does look like congress is going to insist on some type of heavy lift no matter what people here or even NASA thinks. So maybe by 2020 we will have the pyramid base in place and also have a government vehicle in place to do some stuff should the political will be there.

    If you think about it, it may have been a little un realistic for Obama to try to shut down the pork machine cold turkey, it appears Bolden still thinks if he sticks to his rhetoric congress will just give up and abandon heavy lift. I don’t think they will though. Y’all that work in the industry would know better than I but I can’t help but think if Obama had set up proper meetings with the industry and congress from the beginning this transition would be a lot less painful for everyone, the compromise should have been agreed to even before the official announcement to cancel constellation was made.

  • Matt Wiser

    Can’t believe I’m agreeing with Ron on something (re: your most recent post). Once the LEO foundation is up and going, then we can go explore. Said it in previous threads, but I’ll repeat: I do want the Commercial side to suceed, so that NASA can direct its HSF resources to BEO. The sooner Boeing, Orbital, Lockheed-Martin, and ugh…Space X get a commercial crew capability stood up and operational, the sooner NASA can use Orion/HLV to go places. Not boots on the ground just yet, but that will come in time. (hopefully once PLYMOUTH ROCK is flown, that becomes the next item on the “to do” list) The first BEO mission ought to be Lunar orbit. Not just once, but several times. Then PLYMOUTH ROCK, and then get back to the lunar surface. (which is what Ed Crawley has said in his presentation, more or less, back at the Cape on 15 Apr of last year).

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott and Matt – glad you like the analogy. It’s not like we lack passion for space exploration around here, but it’s the when and how that seems to be the biggest points of disagreement.

    I do see the creation of a crew transportation system are truly opening up space for not just NASA, but virtually anyone. Because of that, though I have my own favorite things to do and places to go in space, I am more focused on the near-term transportation. The Moon, NEO’s, Mars – we’ll get to all of them, so the sequence is not as important as the ability. It’s just going to be painful waiting for this to happen during these next few years.

    Regarding pork, Democrats and Republicans aspire publicly to eliminate pork, but most people I know take it as an aspiration, and one that only works when they all do it. Of course the pork recipients don’t want less pork, regardless which party is doing the proposing, so I don’t think any of the parties involved this past year would have been happy with major changes, regardless how much schmoozing went on ahead of time. With Obama/Bolden, their number one priority last year was canceling Constellation, and what that took was agreeing to the SLS, which I sure they felt was livable.

    For the SLS, if you look at the estimates for what Ares V was going to need, then the amount Congress wants to give for the SLS is too small, backing up what NASA has said. I think Congress will grumble, but they will fund it, and the program will amble along – I don’t know if it will ever get built, but it might. And though I know lots of people have lots of ideas for an HLV, Congress hasn’t allocated any money for payloads, so I worry about it being a financial albatross for NASA, draining funds that could have been used to start BEO exploration.

    For the MPCV, the latest GAO estimate was $20-29B to build it, which seems like a waste to me. I think once we get crew transportation to LEO routine, we’ll quickly transition to true space-only spaceships for exploration (like the Nautilus proposal), and the need for capsules will only be for lifeboat and CRV duty, not as primary exploration vehicles – who wants to live in a minivan-sized compartment for months on end with two other people?

    Those are my thoughts – maybe we’ll find more points of agreement going forward…

  • Matt Wiser

    Well, Ron, reasonable people can disagree. Right now, NASA’s committed to Orion Block II/MPCV for BEO. As for living, hab modules have been proposed by Lockheed-Martin for long duration flights (one PLYMOUTH ROCK scenario has such a thing) or docking two Orions end to end for the same purpose.

    Nautilus would be a fine technology demonstrator. We’ll need it, or something similar, for Mars or other deep space objectives.

  • Dennis Berube

    What Im afraid will happen is that commercial crew will turn out just like most other things we quickly get so tired of! At first everything we do liike new TV shows , new cars, etc. etc. we band together and support the efforts. Then after a few years we dont care to do it anymore. I hope that doesnt happen with commercial crew.

  • Dennis Berube

    I do think that a trial run for any manned spacecraft should be lunar orbit. I think the Soviets should launch a Soyuz for a lunar orbit mission. I think that would bolster all of us space fanatics and give us a little hope. Right now we are stagnant in the water.

  • VirgilSamms

    “-the threat is of low probability (at least in the short term) due to the protective effect of Jupiter and it will be some time before the technology to deflect a body of this size is available.”

    You are trying to select us out of existence. I said it was random. It could happen tomorrow; don’t you understand that? On the time scale of millions of years it is inevitable- but it is random so you cannot predict when. Jupiter is why there is life on earth buy sucking in most of them- but not all. And we do have the technology- H-bombs and HLV’s. You are so wrong.

    As for Nautilus- it ignores the 800 pound gorilla of Heavy Nuclei cosmic radiation- as all such “proposals” fishing for support always do.

    Now I expect someone to post some nonsense about the radiation problem not really being a problem blah blah; unfortunately it is nonsense. Nothing will stop heavy nulcei but mass and distance. And we have the technology to protect against it but, space flight is inherently expensive- there is no cheap.

  • JR

    “I will close the gap on shuttle and constellation”

    Never trust someone who supports a liar?

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    I think that would bolster all of us space fanatics and give us a little hope. Right now we are stagnant in the water.

    You, Windy and others that don’t like the idea of a permanently manned space station, I think you may be ADHD. Just an observation, since you seem to need new things happening to keep you from being bored.

    I look at the work being done on the ISS as anything but boring, since we are learning how to live and work in space, which is what I thought everyone on this forum supported.

    Well it turns out that living and working in space can be really routine, which is good, and that our improvements in space will be very much like they are on Earth, which is incremental most of the time. For instance, the ISS just expanded again with the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM).

    The thing that impresses me the most is when I’m watching life on the ISS on NASA TV. The ISS is huge inside, and though it took a long time to get to this point, I think the ISS has finally gotten to the point where the amount of work done will accelerate.

    Also, we just had SIX spacecraft docked at the ISS at the same time, from four different countries. This is unprecedented in the history of spaceflight to have that much activity in one place in space. And it’s only going to get busier.

    So to me, the ISS is a vibrant source of space activity, and far from the “stagnant” point of view that you hold. Please open your eyes.

  • VirgilSamms

    “should launch a Soyuz for a lunar orbit mission.”

    I am not sure if Soyuz heat shield is rated for the higher reentry speed/temperature. That would cost money.

    Getting that extra…what is it, 6000 mph?, needed for escaping earths gravity field is the trick. I don’t know how big a booster it would take using hypergolics- which is what you need so you can dock with it reliably. A problem with a liquid hydrogen stage that makes rendezvous longer than calculated will result in too much cryogenic boiling off to do the mission. I do not know what kind of booster the Russians have available for the trans-lunar injection burn. Maybe they could use two hooked together, burning one and then the other.

    If they don’t have boosters available to adapt easily and have to build one that would cost more money.

    They would probably send one unmanned first on a test mission. More money.

    But I would say they could do it if they wanted- but why? It would be dangerous because outside LEO if there is a solar event it can easily kill the crew. Apollo narrowly missed one that would have killed one of the apollo missions; one of the reasons besides money that the later missions were canceled. So there is risk of death even if everything works right.

    Not worth the risk.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    As for Nautilus- it ignores the 800 pound gorilla…

    Gary, you alway assume that you’re the only one that is aware of radiation issues in space. You’re not.

    If you’ve read anything about the Nautilus proposal (which I doubt), you would have read that they are addressing radiation in their design. In fact everyone addresses radiation issues in their BEO designs, it’s just that they are not coming up with your solution, which is a 1,000 ton nuclear-powered spaceship.

    Read and research before you post, and if you really want a spacecraft built the way you think it should be built, become a spaceship engineer, get funding, and build you own. That way you can show everyone how wrong (or right) they are.

  • “I am not sure if Soyuz heat shield is rated for the higher reentry speed/temperature. That would cost money.”

    The LEO Soyuz probably can’t, but the Zond circumlunar series shows that they knew how to do that in the late 60’s (though they had assorted other technology issues that prevented a manned flight back then):

    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyz7kl1.htm

    http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/soyz7kl1.htm

  • DCSCA

    @VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    The Soyuz was originally built as part of the Soviet Manned Lunar program.

  • Scott Bass

    Space x may go for lunar orbit first, they contracted to deliver one of the xprize rovers and it seems like it is something Eli would like to do to demo dragons capabilities…long way off still though, he still needs to buy those oxygen bottles off eBay ;)

  • Matt Wiser

    Scott, I think you and I are on the same wavelength re: your 6 March post. I’ve said before that if Obama had restructured the lunar program to say “We’re not just going to the moon, but we’re going to other places too, and in an affordable and sustainable way”, I think a lot of the acrimony and fury over canning CxP would’ve been avoided. And yes, I do think Bolden’s hoping Congress will let him go w/o heavy lift or lunar return, but from the rerun of the hearing on C-SPAN, some members were more than willing to put his feet to the fire on both and make him live up to the 2010 Authorization Act re: MPCV/Orion and HLV at least, and make lunar return more of an action item on NASA’s agenda (after PLYMOUTH ROCK at least), without committing to a specific deadline.

  • Joe

    “DCSCA wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
    @VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    The Soyuz was originally built as part of the Soviet Manned Lunar program.”

    The intended Soviet Lunar Vehicle was called Zond. It was a stripped down version of the Soyuz (basicaly they left off the orbital module and reduced consumeables to support only 2 instead of 3 people). Do not know the exact details but it was flown twice in the late 1960s/early 1970s on lunar fly by (not lunar orbit) missions launched (I think) with the Proton Booster. The program was cancelled whe the Russians could not get their N1 Booster to work.

  • Joe

    Forgot to say, the mission were tests, flown without crew.

  • DCSCA

    @Joe wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 9:42 am
    Inaccurate. Zond was solely designed for lunar orbital missions, initially a top Proton- no landing.. And a manned circumlunar flight was stalled in 1968 due to several factors -bureaucratic and engineer, but they came close to eclipsing Apollo 8. Soyuz was a flexible-design spacecraft created for lunar landing missions a top the N1- with a lander nestled beneath. The failure of Soyuz 1- Komorov’s death in ’67- stalled it for a year as well. Soyuz was to carry two on a lunar mission with one remaining in orbit and the other making a spacewalk to enter to the lander for descent to the surface. Alexi Leonov was initially selected to be the cosmonaut to make the descent and trained extenstively for the mission. The failures of the N1 ended plans for their manned landing. But, as we know, Soyuz continues to soar successfully.

  • Joe

    “DCSCA wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
    “Zond was solely designed for lunar orbital missions”

    True, but I never said otherwise. The Zond was intended to serve the purpose of the Apollo Command and Service Module, there was to be a separate lander (with the capability to deliver one cosmonaut to the lunar surface). The two vehicles would have been delivered (Apollo style) to LLO by the N1 booster. I know this is essentially what you said, but it is in no way contradicted by what I said. So remind me, what are we supposed to be arguing about. :)

Leave a Reply to vulture4 Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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