Congress, NASA

Senate proposes $18.5B CR for NASA, takes aim at space technology

The Senate Appropriations Committee released on Friday highlights of its proposed continuing resolution (CR) for the remainder of FY2011, a response to the House version, HR 1, that passed last month. Under the Senate bill NASA would get $18.539 billion, $461 million less than the $19 billion requested by the administration over a year ago and later authorized by Congress in the NASA authorization act. That amount, though, is $412 million more than what the House provided for NASA in HR 1, the release notes ($298 million of the difference is the amendment approved by the House to transfer money from NASA’s Cross Agency Support account to a community policing program within the Justice Department.)

Breakdowns by account are not included in the release, although it appears that space technology will bear the brunt of the Senate’s proposed cut. “At this level, NASA will not be provided any funds for requested but new long-range space technology research activities that have the potential to lead to new discoveries and new technologies that could improve life on Earth,” the committee release notes. A separate release by the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) subcommittee also states that the proposed CR “Does not provide for requested, but new, long-range space technology research activities.” The administration had requested $572.2 million for Space Technology in its original FY11 budget request and the authorization act approved $350 million for Space Technology.

Other key NASA programs would not be as adversely affected by the Senate’s proposal. The CJS subcommittee release states that the budget “Preserves NASA portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments, holding NASA’s feet to the fire to build the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and the heavy lift Space Launch System.” And the full committee release, apparently referring to funding for Cross Agency Support, notes that it avoids cuts “that would disrupt ongoing science missions and cause layoffs of 4,500 middle class contractors who provide landscaping, IT, janitorial, and other services for NASA centers.” Janitors, yes; gamechanging technology, not so much.

97 comments to Senate proposes $18.5B CR for NASA, takes aim at space technology

  • common sense

    “And the full committee release, apparently referring to funding for Cross Agency Support, notes that it avoids cuts “that would disrupt ongoing science missions and cause layoffs of 4,500 middle class contractors who provide landscaping, IT, janitorial, and other services for NASA centers.” Janitors, yes; gamechanging technology, not so much.”

    Can you get so much more disingenuous! These are middle class people???? How removed these morons are from reality is mind blowing. Go ask them if they feel middle class. Some of them don’t even “qualify” for health benefits thanks to our idiotic Congress.

    UNBELIEVABLE.

  • Egad

    > These are middle class people????

    Not to get all political or anything (I’ll be good after this), but yes, the way things are headed, those probably are a good example of tomorrow’s middle class.

  • NASA Fan

    I worked on a mission once that was canceled. And when it happened, the congressional inquires we got had nothing to do with what was lost in the future, ie. loss of science, technology advancment, future monies in thier district, etc. All they cared about was ‘anyone laid off today?’

    Congresscritters cares about one thing: Is what is happening now going to impact my next reelection chances.

    That’s it.

  • I must admit that when I was looking at the 2010 budget proposal a year ago I was shocked by the billions going into the “interagency” fund. All that money, and comparatively little going to Constellation…No wonder that progress was not as fast as most of us expected…
    Yes, it costs money to keep the lights, telephones, computers, heating and air conditioning going. But you would think that this is one area where NASA could tighten its belt in order to fund significant programs.

  • DCSCA

    “Under the Senate bill NASA would get $18.539 billion, $461 million less than the $19 billion requested by the administration over a year ago and later authorized by Congress in the NASA authorization act… At this level, NASA will not be provided any funds for requested but new long-range space technology research activities that have the potential to lead to new discoveries and new technologies that could improve life on Earth,” the committee release notes.”

    And to the eyes of Americans, who in passing give the occasional glimpse to thestatus of our space program (you know, the folks who wonder when Glenn walked on the moon,) this cut will soothe a few trying to pay their electric bills and to some, cover the failure of Glory which the space sgency splashed into the Pacific. Of course, had a private enterprised space corporation suffered that kind of loss, it most likely would face soaring insurance rates or simply go out of business. That’s why governments operate space programs. Meanwhile, under the financially safe cloak of national security, the good ol’ USAF plans to loft their XB37B today from the Cape, weather permitting. Funny how that military space program keeps chugging along, funded and flying, while NASA keeps struggling to, as Birdwell notes, ‘keep the lights on.’ NASA’s future lay with becoming a civilian division of the DoD. As it stands now, it’s doomed to death by a thousand budget cuts.

  • common sense

    @ Egad wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    You ma want to at least read this and tell me how they can be middle class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

    If you believe that middle class USA is janitors and landscapers then how do you call an engineer? The definition of middle class has changed quite a bit it seems to me over the years. The middle class used to be able to afford a house and education for their children. The “new” middle class is a make believe by politicians to seduce voters. Janitors and landscapers are not middle class. It is an insult to them. How can they aspire to a better future if they already thing they “made it”? People who often have to work 2 if not more jobs are NOT middle class. Come on! Please!

  • VirgilSamms

    I am amazed at the way the real problem with space exploration and human space flight gets ignored on this site. It is the DOD. But no one want to rant and insult each other about that. Why is that?

    I have posted it several times before- we can build death machines to kill illiterate tribesman in Afland or we can build spaceships. The money will get spent on something. The corporations do not care- they want the biggest profit and that is all. Stop building stealth fighters and B-2 bombers, Nuclear aircraft carriers and boomers- and they will build HLV’s and space ships instead. We just need to find a new enemy to justify the spending. The real enemy has been there in front of us since 1980 when the Chicxulub crater that killed the dinosaurs was found. The explosion over Tunguska, and more recent airbursts detected over the ocean- all of this mounting evidence keeps warning us of a very real threat to the existence of mankind.

    You guys with your hobby rocket space station vacation fantasies make me sick. There is a better way to open up the solar system- and protect the earth.

  • VirgilSamms

    “For NASA, the second Taurus XL failure in a row drove losses to nearly $700 million.”

    So much for commercial space. A single Sidemount cargo mission would have put up 70 tons of satellites for what that cheaper is better lash up cost. That would be about 80 of those 1200 pound payloads. And since the orbiter for all it’s expense and problems has made it to orbit over a 100 times- I think they could cut do it with a cargo pod.

    There is no cheap. Space flight is inherently expensive.

  • wodun

    It would be nice to have a budget and put an end to these CR shenanigans. Then we could compare that budget against the last one that was passed instead of requests and side deals.

  • cover the failure of Glory which the space sgency splashed into the Pacific.

    The space agency didn’t splash anything in the Pacific, you ignorant loon. It was a commercial launch.

    Of course, had a private enterprised space corporation suffered that kind of loss, it most likely would face soaring insurance rates or simply go out of business.

    I’m sure that OSC’s insurance rates will be going up, at least for Taurus flights, as a result. That’s how business works. Not that you would understand anything about it.

  • Space Cadet

    I wonder if OSC gets paid any different for a launch failure than they for a success?

    Cross-agency support account – is that the account where charges go for NASA employees who have no project to work on but can’t be laid off because they are civil servants?

  • pennypincher

    One of these days, NASA will be smart enough to write contracts for launch “payable on delivery” if they haven’t already

  • Dan Woodard

    Cross Agency Support also pays for some initial consideration of new R&D ideas that haven’t gained the political support and bureaucratic baggage of major programs and aren’t on the critical path to repeat the glory of Project Apollo, but might actually be of practical value, like using space hardware (on earth) to find the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, which we are working on. Without some flexibility to look where the facts may lead, how can you even start real research?

  • NASA Fan

    OSC’s insurance rates will indeed go up, and NASA will be paying for it

  • Major Tom

    “So much for commercial space. A single Sidemount cargo mission”

    Doesn’t exist, would cost at least $6.6 billion to develop — nearly ten times the OCO and Glory losses — and would have no reliability record indicating whether it would do any better than the Taurus.

    Don’t make idiotic statements. Think before you post.

    “…for what that cheaper is better lash up cost.”

    This isn’t even an intelligible phrase.

    Learn how to speak English or don’t post here.

    “That would be about 80 of those 1200 pound payloads.”

    At $700 million for two, 80 would cost $28 billion total. That’s $10 billion more than the entire annual NASA budget. Your own statements are proving that it’s a uselessly large capability.

    For the second time, don’t make idiotic statements. Think before you post.

    “I think they could cut do it with a cargo pod.”

    Another unintelligible sentence.

    For the second time, learn English or don’t post here.

    “There is no cheap. Space flight is inherently expensive.”

    You’re proposals make it ridiculously expensve.

    Ugh…

  • Artemus

    Yes, what did happen when OCO-2 failed? Was Orbital penalized? Who ate the cost of the lost payload?

  • Artemus

    Correction: OCO-2 is the replacement for OCO-1, which is the one that went into the water hazard.

  • Artemus

    I found Orbital’s Q1 2009 financial report and it indicates a “$0.8 million contract loss recorded in connection with…the failure.” Does that mean they had a net loss of $800K on the contract, made $800K less than they thought they were going to make, or what?

  • Frank Glover

    “You guys with your hobby rocket space station vacation fantasies make me sick. There is a better way to open up the solar system- and protect the earth.”

    By making big, bad rocks the boogymen? Get real. At best, we’d get better and finding and deflecting them. Nothing more. You don’t get a spacefaring civilization out of that, alone.

    Give me a ‘hobby rocket space station fantasy’ any day, it’s something people will continue to pay money for, with an incentive for improvement, once they have it.

    “So much for commercial space. A single Sidemount cargo mission would have put up 70 tons of satellites for what that cheaper is better lash up cost. That would be about 80 of those 1200 pound payloads.”

    In what way is that helpful? Do you suggest that users with Glory-sized sats have to wait for 70 tons of additional payload also going to much the same orbit before they can get a launch? How frequently will you fly, and what rate of launcher production will you have under that constraint? (imagine trying to use a 747 as a regional jet, but still having to fill it to the same break-even number of seas as for long-range flight)

    Or are you saying it’s as cheap as Taurus anyway for small users, and they could bear the same launch costs when flying alone?

    And is Sidemount somehow immune to faring separation failure?

    You understand you’re answering a question that no one is asking, right?

    “There is no cheap. Space flight is inherently expensive.”

    Your scenario guarantees it.

  • DCSCA

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
    “I am amazed at the way the real problem with space exploration and human space flight gets ignored on this site. It is the DOD. But no one want to rant and insult each other about that. Why is that?”

    Where’s the problem- the DoD was where HSF was beginning before political events created NASA. The DoD is where its future rests as well through the Age of Austerity– most likely with NASA as a division of DoD.

    Per NASA: “The impetus for these [manned spaceflight] feasibility studies came from a staff meeting at the headquarters of the Air Research and Development Command ARDC at Baltimore, on February 15, 1956. During the course of the meeting, General Thomas S. Power, Commander of ARDC, expressed-impatience with the failure of his “idea men” to propose any advanced flight systems that could be undertaken after the X-15. Work should begin now, he declared, on two or three separate approaches beyond the X-15, including a vehicle that would operate outside the atmosphere without wings. He suggested that a manned ballistic rocket might be “eventually capable of useful intercontinental military and commercial transport and cargo operation.” But the main benefit of having an advanced research project underway, Power pointed out, was that the Air Force could more easily acquire funds for the “general technical work needed.”

    “Thus prodded into action, Power’s staff quickly proposed two separate research projects. The first called for a “Manned Glide Rocket Research System” – a rocket-launched glider that would operate initially at an altitude of about 400,000 feet and a speed of mach 21. The other, termed “Manned Ballistic Rocket Research System,” would be a separable manned nose cone, or capsule, the final stage of an ICBM. Such a vehicle could lead to the “quick reaction delivery of [high priority logistics to any place on Earth,” as suggested by Power, or to a manned satellite. Power’s staff argued that the manned ballistic concept offered the greater promise, because the solution to the outstanding technical problems, the most critical of which was aerodynamic heating, would result from current ICBM research and development; because existing ICBMs would furnish the booster system, so that efforts could be concentrated on the capsule; and because the ballistic vehicle possibly could be developed by 1960. (This evolved into NASA’s Project Mercury.) Either program, however, should be pushed rapidly so that the Air Force could protect its own interests in the field of space flight!” -source, NASA

  • Robert G. Oler

    Artemus wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    Correction: OCO-2 is the replacement for OCO-1, which is the one that went into the water hazard…………………..

    lol Robert G. Oler

  • Virgil Samms:

    While I agree with you about NEOs being a serious problem, I disagree with everything else you say. Defense isn’t funded ONLY, or even primarily, because of defense contractors. It’s funded because people think the military is more relevant than so-called human spaceflight. As a direct counterexample to your thesis: look what happened during the peace dividend years of declining defense spending after 1990. NASA went up a little, then down again. NASA did not replace, or even mitigate the decline of, defense spending.

    And if spaceflight has to be expensive forever, then NOTHING will happen in space. And commercial is not the same as Dan Goldin’s “faster better cheaper”.

    Jim

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ March 5th, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    It appears the press believes the ‘space agency’ splashed Glory into the sea and has informed the general public so. Why don’t you tell them they’re wrong.

    NASA’s Lost Glory Satellite: http://www.Space.com
    NASA loses its ‘Glory’ satellite soon after launch: http://www.themoneytimes.com
    NASA’s Lost Glory Satellite: Why It Failed and Why It Matters: news.yahoo.com
    NASA Glory Satellite Launch Failure:www.space.com

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi VS

    “You guys with your hobby rocket space station vacation fantasies make me sick. There is a better way to open up the solar system- and protect the earth.”

    Yes. The difference between SpaceX and Orbital and the hobby rocket people is that SpaceX and Orbital have engineers and business plans to make money. I am sorry to hear of Orbital’s recent launch failures, and it will hurt them. The loss of OCO and GLORY will set back climate science quite a bit – I wonder if they used pyro-technic charges or springs for their payload fairing section separation.

    These hobby rocket folks live in a fantasy world, and as nothing you will say will penetrate their fantasies. You could try and set up a “space” fantasies site, but posting here is like trying to teach a pig to dance- it accomplishes nothing, and just irritates the pig.

    That said, and acknowledging a military-industrial, I can not agree with your views regarding DoD. Its not like everyone on this planet loves us.

    HI FG –

    “By making big, bad rocks the boogymen? Get real. At best, we’d get better and finding and deflecting them. Nothing more. You don’t get a spacefaring civilization out of that, alone..”

    You’ve got your priorities backwards, and don’t understand your situation, nor the degree of the hazrd.

    We already are a space faring civilization, as we are all of us already in space, passengers on spaceship Earth.

    Keeping the Earth in operating condition is priority one.
    You may view that as “Nothing more”, but it is step one.

    Closing this note off, two observations:
    1) You don’t pay for a war with tax cuts for billionaires.
    2) Hitler and Stalin did not like unions.

    I certainly hope China’s leadership will not follow recent Republican actions.

  • common sense

    @ Jim Muncy wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Commercial as envisioned is obviously faster and cheaper.

    Better? Compared with what? Constellation? It is better, of course. It is better because for the cost it provides a lot more.

    In the end it is faster, better and cheaper. All Goldin demonstrated is that NASA cannot be run like a business. It showed that business ruled by market laws can do things that NASA can do.

    What a lot of people seem to not understand is that NASA can do a lot more! It can do what is not “possible” today. A business has difficulty investing in the unknown. NASA is the place where it can be done. New technologies, new ideas, new concepts. Not rehashing the old Apollo dogma!

    This is what is sad. We have NASA the race car and we use it for grocery shopping! Too bad.

  • It appears the press believes the ‘space agency’ splashed Glory into the sea and has informed the general public so.

    So just because the press believes a falsehood, and has misled the public, it somehow magically makes it true? Are you really that stupid?

    That was a rhetorical question. We know the answer.

  • amightywind

    Better? Compared with what? Constellation? It is better, of course. It is better because for the cost it provides a lot more.

    Here we are into year 3 of Obama and commercial space has done a whole lotta nothin’. I’m sure in 5 years commercial space will provide a classy ride for astronauts needing to abandon the failing space station. NASA runs no space station. Yet somehow it manages to blow $17B per year. How much can you be concerned about costs when your allies are running a $1.65T deficit and are unwilling to cut 1%? Bring back Constellation!

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    “Here we are into year 3 of Obama and commercial space has done a whole lotta nothin’.”

    Yeah right. Did you ever learned of the Falcon 1/9 and Dragon flights? Were are the Constellation Ares/Orion flights? Ah yeah Ares-1X…

    “How much can you be concerned about costs when your allies are running a $1.65T deficit and are unwilling to cut 1%? Bring back Constellation!”

    Who is obtuse enough to believe that a 1% cut of our deficit is the way forward? Who is obtuse enough to want to bring back a bankrupt program? Is this all you have to offer? Go back to work and come back when you have some thing serious to propose. The only mistake this WH would make it to actually sign into law a 1% cut. They would appear to play the game and to be the peons of the Republicans.

  • mr. mark

    And as we argue Spacex is readying Cots2/3 for launch to deliver the first possible private cargo flight to the ISS this summer. KEEP ARGUING! PLEASE!!!! LOL

  • DCSCA

    mr. mark wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Another press release. Discovery, no doubt, delivered plenty of cheese, and if not, a Progress will ferry a wheel or two before summer. Good grief. Stop talking. Start flying.

  • Dan Woodard

    Spaceflight is not inherently expensive. LH2 at LC-39 costs 98 cents a gallon. LOX is 60 cents. Almost all the cost goes into fabricating a new vehicle for each launch. That’s why we built the shuttle. Obviously it did not meet its cost and reliability goals, but it was our very first attempt. Giving up reusable launch systems after this one attempt is like flying only the Wright Brothers’ first design until 1935 and then giving up on heavier-than-air flight and going back to balloons. The X-37 is only the second reusable spacecraft that has landed on a US runway. It points to the future of spaceflight. It’s unfortunate that NASA has abandoned any meaningful role in it.

  • Commercial Space is a virtual march over a cliff! Those corporations lack the ingenuity & the expertise that would go into viably flying manned vehicles—-even to mere LEO. Emphasis on the MERE; no real exploration is ever going to emerge from hovering in Low Earth Orbit for another next decade and a half. Space travel is just too dangerous and risky to be placed in the hands of private corporations. Maybe in the farther future, some kind of corporate stepping-in would be do-able. But NOT in this era! The Flexible Path-ers are placing the American space program onto quicksand! Launching unmanned satellites via the commercial, for-profit route is an entirely different ball game, than trying to launch astronauts on the same basis. The technological complexities of manned spacecraft will require a government involvement & governmental backing. All this private corporate space exploitation fantasy has been heard many times before in the past. Why hasn’t one successful crewed spaceflight ever been launched, orbited & landed via a space entrepreneur company, over the last thirty years?? Why didn’t any of these entrepreneurs attempt an LEO spaceflight all this time, while the Space Shuttle was flying??

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ almightywind,

    Re.: US Federal deficit.

    Um… Windy… You do know that CxP will cost >10x commercial crew to get the same results, don’t you? That it will cost twice that amount again just for the BEO launcher, let alone any payloads, don’t you? So don’t you think it is slightly stupid to be complaining about the cost of the cheaper and less risky option?

    I’m on the record as an HLV enthusiast. However, I’m increasingly of the opinion that NASA, as it currently exists and in the terms under which it is funded, cannot build one sufficiently efficiently to leave anything in the till to do something with it. In that event, the effort and cost becomes wasted. By all means, build SLS but only do so as part of an integrated space system that will provide LEO and BEO capabilities unique to the vehicle. That means a heavy cargo launch system for the ISS (>40,000lbs to ISS) and the ability to perform basic orbital lunar science (LLO, not trans-lunar flyby) as an absolute minimum.

  • Justin Kugler

    Castro, do you know what a monopsony is? When you’re the only buyer and operating your own service, it tends to crowd out the rest of the market.

  • A_M_Swallow

    @Chris Castro
    …Why hasn’t one successful crewed spaceflight ever been launched, orbited & landed via a space entrepreneur company, over the last thirty years?? Why didn’t any of these entrepreneurs attempt an LEO spaceflight all this time, while the Space Shuttle was flying??

    Simple because the Shuttle was flying. Whilst the Shuttle flew NASA would not buy tickets on a commercial space flight and the tourist market was too small to pay for development of both a capsule and launch vehicle.

  • byeman

    “Those corporations lack the ingenuity & the expertise that would go into viably flying manned vehicles”

    Where is your source for this? Boeing is building a commercial capsule. They have built everyone of NASA’s manned spacecraft. Are you say that they can’t do it? Also when was the last NASA manned spacecraft designed and built?

    You don’t know what you are talking about.

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 1:29 am

    Commercial Space is a virtual march over a cliff! Those corporations lack the ingenuity & the expertise that would go into viably flying manned vehicles—-even to mere LEO.

    Do you ever do any research before you post?

    You do realize that NASA doesn’t build and operate rockets and spacecraft?

    Who does? Your evil, stupid aerospace corporations. You know, the ones that built Apollo and the Shuttle, and it’s those stupid aerospace corporations that virtually run the Shuttle program, not NASA.

    Ah, but ignorance must be bliss for you…

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    “Here we are into year 3 of Obama and commercial space has done a whole lotta nothin’.”

    You must be suffering from sleep deprivation. President Obama’s first year was spent operating under the last President’s budget. His first budget how much was allocated for commercial space?

    Commercial got a whopping 50 million from the stimulas bill. More was achieved with that 50 million than the 4 billion wasted on constellation.

    Congress still has not even appropriated last year’s funding and running under a CR. Stop with the crazy talk. When congress FINALLY passes some funding maybe we will see some more movement with commercial.

    Chris Castro wrote:

    “Commercial Space is a virtual march over a cliff! Those corporations lack the ingenuity & the expertise that would go into viably flying manned vehicles—-even to mere LEO. “

    Why do you have such hatred for Americans? Are you a secret “hate everything American” person?

    Why do you hold your fellow Americans who work in the aerospace industry in such contempt? Why do you constantly denigrate American aerospace engineers and workers? Why such hatred for for their efforts?

    You treat your fellow Americans with such hatred and contempt it makes your discourse hard to stomach at times. Those corporations are made up of the fabric of America. Aerospace workers from across our Nation work at those corporations trying to build a domestic commercial space access sector that can be the envy of the entire planet. Along with that it will be American corporations and American workers will be gaining those high tech jobs of the future and a shot at dominating that sector of the global economy.

    Why do you have such hatred for these Americans and show so much contempt for them?

  • Michael Kent

    Chris Castro wrote:

    Those corporations lack the ingenuity & the expertise that would go into viably flying manned vehicles—-even to mere LEO

    Ahh, Chris, one of “those corporations” is Boeing. Every single person NASA has ever launched into space went there in a vehicle designed and built by Boeing: X-15, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo CSM, and the Space Shuttle orbiter — all Boeing. They were also the prime contractor for the Skylab and International Space Stations.

    Are you seriously suggesting Boeing lacks the ingenuity and expertise to build their eighth manned spacecraft?

    Mike

  • Martijn Meijering

    Those corporations lack the ingenuity & the expertise that would go into viably flying manned vehicles—-even to mere LEO.

    Who do you think built all US manned spacecraft? Who do you think operates the Shuttle? That’s right, US corporations. Are you really that misinformed or are you trying to spread disinformation?

  • VirgilSamms

    “I’m on the record as an HLV enthusiast. ”

    No you are not BRG. You just give it lip service so you can then criticize it. Sneaky but transparent as time goes on.

  • Yet somehow it manages to blow $17B per year.

    Your figures are at least 10 years old Windy; http://www.spaceprojects.com/iss/

    For crying out loud at least use up to date figures if you’re gonna denigrate something; The cost estimates for the ISS range from 35 billion to 160 billion dollars.[26] ESA, the one agency which actually presents potential overall costs, estimates €100 billion for the entire station over 30 years.[25] A precise cost estimate for the ISS is unclear, as it is difficult to determine which costs should be attributed to the ISS programme, or how the Russian contribution should be measured.[26]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
    (Although I’m not the biggest fan of the Wikipedia)

    Cost of CxP: http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=cost+of+constellation+program

  • VirgilSamms

    “the technological complexities of manned spacecraft will require a government involvement & governmental backing.”

    Absolutely correct Chris. A certain commenter who posts here might think he can throw a futon and a scuba tank in a dragon without even an escape system and go for a ride but that is just downright nonsense and totally irresponsible for someone who is supposedly a journalist and chairman of a space advocacy group. The dogpile just slams you on something you did not clarify- the small companies like SpaceX and others are the ones you are talking about obviously. They knew that to but just wanted and excuse to start the dogpile because they really really dont like what you are saying. The truth hurts. The big corporations like boeing WITH nasa oversight and quality assurance and the necessary government funding are the opposite of the flexible path and are what made Apollo a success. Moving away from the conservative formulae into the underfunded space shuttle paying for itself launching satellites was the start of NASA’s problems. The regulars like to paint themselves as the ones being conservative by going cheap but in fact they are the ones courting disaster with their radical schemes like fuel depots and inflatable modules. The private space advocates- I used to refer to them as something different in connection with a certain space tourist but those comments did not seem to make it up- are going to wreck our space program. Anyone speaking out against them is doing the nation and space exploration a favor.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The private space advocates- I used to refer to them as something different in connection with a certain space tourist but those comments did not seem to make it up- are going to wreck our space program.

    You keep “confusing” the US space program with the Shuttle political industrial complex.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The regulars like to paint themselves as the ones being conservative by going cheap but in fact they are the ones courting disaster with their radical schemes like fuel depots and inflatable modules.

    There’s nothing radical about using storable propellant transfer, which has been in operational use ever since Salyut-6 in 1978. And storable propellant is good enough to give all sides most of what they want. Or say they want. Inflatables are not as mature yet, but both NASA and Bigelow have done a lot of work on them and Bigelow has flown two successful prototypes. I’ll tell you what’s risky: relying on an unproven (nay disproven) launch vehicle developer like MSFC to develop an unneeded launch vehicle.

    If you want a conservative (yet game changing) approach you should support existing EELVs + EOR with separately launched fully fueled EELV upper stages as EDSs + Lagrange point rendez-vous and refueling of a reusable spacecraft powered by storable propellant. All the game changing technological and commercial developments could then be safely left to the market without NASA interference (or with as much interference from the old NACA centers as politics would dictate).

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    The big corporations like boeing WITH nasa oversight and quality assurance…

    Gary, you are hilarious sometimes. NASA has a lot of bright people, but they are not rocket and spaceship building & operating experts, and the people that are move around within the industry.

    But that’s OK, keep living in your world, and the real world will keep moving forward without you.

  • amightywind

    WITH nasa oversight and quality assurance and the necessary government funding are the opposite of the flexible path and are what made Apollo a success.

    This is the central contradiction of newspace. SpaceX and its ilk wants the government subsidy of its business but won’t submit to complete technical or financial oversight of the kind that built Apollo, STS and even EELV. I don’t blame them. Who would want to defend the F9 first stage design to an outside technical review? From the taxpayer viewpoint it is a bad deal.

  • Who would want to defend the F9 first stage design to an outside technical review?

    The Falcon 9 design was thoroughly reviewed by NASA as part of the COTS program.

    From the taxpayer viewpoint it is a bad deal.

    Yes, it’s obviously a much better deal for the taxpayer to spend a hundred times as much on a NASA- or Senate-designed rocket that will never fly.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Gary, you are hilarious sometimes. NASA has a lot of bright people, but they are not rocket and spaceship building & operating experts”

    I know you are upset when you start calling me by a name I am not posting as.

    NASA might disagree with you. After Apollo 1 NASA retrenched it’s quality control and oversight force. Those three guys burned and sadly this is what probably made Apollo a success by making NASA make the contractors do things right. Why did NASA stop operating like that? Underfunding. Why?
    DOD.

    Don’t revise history CR.

  • Das Boese

    dad2059 wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
    “(…) or how the Russian contribution should be measured.[26]”

    Easy: Without the Russians it wouldn’t exist.

    The FGB is the core around which it was built, and without Soyuz/Progress it would not have survived the Columbia catastrophe.

  • VirgilSamms

    “There’s nothing radical about using storable propellant transfer, which has been in operational use ever since Salyut-6 in 1978. And storable propellant is good enough to give all sides most of what they want.”

    I notice you are dodging the cryogenic transfer storage issue. Wise- it is a real can of worms. As for storable propellant- if you look at the ISP of the storables and calculate how much will be needed to fly an adequately shielded spacecraft BEO- you get battlestar galactica. Which is why they keep advertising for this cryogenic storage transfer; it brings the mass way down. But there is no money being spent on it right now that I know of. Maybe because it won’t work. There is so much that has to be addressed storing and transferring liquid hydrogen it is a nightmare. For instance- the storage lines and vessels have to be pre-cooled with liquid nitrogen just to begin the operation. Then you have the hydrogen sneaking out of anything not welded and even some types of welds. Everything gets brittle and starts cold welding to each other and on and on. In zero gravity with radiation interacting with the hydrogen changing it into unstable exothermal form it is a FREAKING NIGHTMARE!

  • VirgilSamms

    “The Falcon 9 design was thoroughly reviewed by NASA”

    It has yet to be human rated for astronauts with an escape system and environmental control system. Two systems that are very time consuming to develop, test, and certify (and expensive). Liberty with the orion capsule and LAS will make it into orbit before a Falcon 9 ever carries anybody; most of the work is done while SpaceX has not even tested anything.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
    “This is the central contradiction of newspace.” It’s a false equivelency. With respect to HSF, there’s no comparison between the historied, half-cerntury experience of government funded and operated space programs and the still untested, unproven ‘promise’ of newspace. But that’s their game- to try to establish there is without actually orbiting a soul. Won’t wash. @Rand Simberg wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    You can hurl insults all you want (as opposed to humans into orbit) but the bottom line is your argument is with NASA PAO and media for not taking your spin. You’re tilting at windmills.

  • common sense

    “Why?
    DOD.”

    So now DoD is a good thing?

  • common sense

    “Who would want to defend the F9 first stage design to an outside technical review?”

    “Outside”? Outside of what? Whatever that means… Oh well…

  • Das Boese

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    “The big corporations like boeing WITH nasa oversight and quality assurance (…)”

    You mean the oversight and QA that has not only allowed a batch of inferior material to enter the production process, but failed to identify and remove it even afterwards, resulting in a critical weakness of the final product, expensive repairs and increased risk of failure? Something that is virtually unthinkable in commercial manufacturing, especially in a production process running for 30 years?

    “(…) and the necessary government funding are the opposite of the flexible path and are what made Apollo a success.”

    What made Apollo a success was a focus on tech development with unlimited funding and a level of risk acceptance bordering on insanity by today’s standards. Or did you forget about Apollo 1 and 13?

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ VirgilSamms,

    You have just demonstrated your ignorance of my posting history, both here and on other sites. I am a long-time DIRECT supporter and have always felt that ~100t IMLEO launchers represent the minimum requirement for significant BEO activity before infrastructure is in place in circum-lunar space and on the Moon’s surface (much to Martijn’s fury).

    Your problem is that you do not see the validity of any viewpoint except your own. Now, I’m willing to say that this can be a flaw any of us can experience. I have to say that everything indicates that you are an ideologue, mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again and expecting reality to conform to your expectations. You very clearly have no real understanding of what is really happening here in terms of what NASA actually needs right now, as opposed to what you want it to have.

    Just one small further point: The interim HLV report suggests that NASA needs to streamline its internal processes if the SLS program is to go ahead on schedule. Clearly NASA does not accept that its current way of doing things is optimum or even entirely necessary.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    After Apollo 1…

    Maybe you haven’t noticed, but that was 44 years ago, at the dawn of the space age. Since that time the aerospace industry has accomplished a lot, including creating and implementing many of the standards that keep you safe when you fly, or when the astronauts fly.

    NASA on the other hand is a customer. One that has very specific needs, and produces volumes of specs, but nonetheless depends on the industry for how to design, build and operate rockets and spacecraft. ULA doesn’t need NASA to tell them how to build and launch their rockets, nor does Boeing need NASA to build their CST-100 (or just about anything else).

    Smart though NASA people may be, you don’t understand what it is that they do best, and what the aerospace industry does.

    Don’t make up stuff Gary (as in Gary Church, who you also post as)

  • @Das Boese wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    I think you have to read the entire entry to get the context of the era. Like I said, the info is ten years out of date. ;)

  • Martijn Meijering

    I am a long-time DIRECT supporter and have always felt that ~100t IMLEO launchers represent the minimum requirement for significant BEO activity before infrastructure is in place in circum-lunar space and on the Moon’s surface (much to Martijn’s fury).

    What irks me is not the belief that ~100t launchers are necessary, but a seeming unwillingness to engage in rational debate over this. I’ve tried many times, but I usually get rhetoric in response. If you’re an exception, I’d be happy (really glad even) to discuss this with you. I don’t recall debating the issues with you, though I do recall reading some of your postings.

    For now I’ll say that “before we have infrastructure in place” is an artificial constraint because we could do the infrastructure first, but more importantly even with that constraint we still don’t need HLVs. We don’t really need any additional infrastructure, a refuelable spacecraft would do. I’ve never had a convincing rebuttal to this suggestion.

  • Das Boese

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    “In zero gravity with radiation interacting with the hydrogen changing it into unstable exothermal form it is a FREAKING NIGHTMARE!”

    Are you for real?

  • VirgilSamms

    “Why?
    DOD.”

    So now DoD is a good thing?

    Read. Pay attention. DOD’s drain on the treasury is what has always caused an underfunded NASA.

    “Don’t make up stuff Gary (as in Gary Church, who you also post as)”

    Yes, you are definitely upset; you are using the infamous accusation.
    You can throw that technobabble smokescreen up like you always do but for those reading this post, understand this;

    Apollo succeeded by spending most of that vast sum on a heavy lift infrastructure that costs money to maintain. There is no cheap. Some people see a way of getting all those tax dollars and they want that money bad. So of course everything obstructing that plan must be shouted down. Apollo succeeded because of dedicated people who worked 7 days a week for years in some cases on civil service pay. It succeeded because of quality control and oversight that was massively intensified after Apollo 1.

    The shuttle failed because of the opposite of all of the above; underfunding, removal of oversight, trying to make space exploration pay for itself. The profit motive is toxic to space exploration. Space travel is inherently expensive- there is no cheap. The inferior lift vehicles are not going to get the job done. Losing the HLV infrastructure will cripple our space capability for decades to come and leave us with a ruined space program. Don’t make stuff up? I am not and you disgust me with your endless infomercial advertising comments.

  • It has yet to be human rated for astronauts with an escape system and environmental control system.

    Now you’re changing the subject (the last refuge, and sometimes the first, of someone losing an argument). The discussion was about the Falcon 9 first stage.

  • amightywind

    Easy: Without the Russians it wouldn’t exist.

    This is a curse, not a blessing. Had the ISS and the shuttle program been terminated immediately in 2003 we would now be exploring the moon and asteroids with Orion/Altair. You newspace nitwits might even have a Bigelow station. Instead we set $ billions alight doing, I am not sure what, on a space station nobody wants but can’t get rid of.

  • “You’ve got your priorities backwards, and don’t understand your situation, nor the degree of the hazrd. ”

    One look at the Barringer Crater in Arizona, or pictures of the Tunguska area are adequate to show the hazard. However…

    Given adequate warning of such objects (and more comprehensive NEO searches can be implemented without leaving Earth), our response will be to launch something adequate to do the deflection. (Think Clementine with nukes.) Dedicated, single-purpose hardware that will be needed very, very rarely. It’s not going to bootstrap large-scale human space flight (though it will benefit if something *else* does). The motivation just isn’t there.

    “We already are a space faring civilization, as we are all of us already in space, passengers on spaceship Earth. ”

    I’ve heard the ‘Spaceship Earth’ metaphor for decades…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth

    …And it’s only that. A metaphor that should not be taken too literally. Real spaceships have some degree of direction, control and a destination. (Where’s Earth’s bridge? Where will it land/dock?) Being a ‘passenger on Earth’ is not ‘spacefaring’ any more than riding North America across its surface via continental drift is ‘seafaring.’

    Asteroid detection and deflection to protect it is clearly very important, but that importance doesn’t alter the requirement for relatively straightforward, mostly existing technologies needed to achieve it. It won’t be a driver of anything more, in terms of human space activity, as it’s readily done by expendable hardware, without human presence. Satellite-based communications are also important, but they didn’t drive HSF because there’s no clear need for a manned satcom (any more than for a permanently manned microwave relay tower), no matter how cheap spaceflight becomes. (though a manned station built primarily for some *other* purpose might also act as a relay, just as pre-existing buildings are often used for cellphone support, instead of a dedicated tower)

    Now, if it should become practical to capture and mine threatening NEOs, you might have a better argument. You need to move people and material, frequently and cheaply for that to be worthwhile, and that ability lends itself to many other applications. But merely to insure the rare, significant impact doesn’t occur? There will be no more investment of resources than necessary to do that one job.

    They’re an act of Nature which, unlike most, we can do something about, but rocks will not become the ‘new enemy.’

  • Das Boese

    amightywind wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    This is a curse, not a blessing. Had the ISS and the shuttle program been terminated immediately in 2003 we would now be exploring the moon and asteroids with Orion/Altair.

    Unlikely.

    You newspace nitwits might even have a Bigelow station.

    Also unlikely.

    Instead we set $ billions alight doing, I am not sure what,

    Then educate yourself. NASA and ESA have comprehensive online resources about research activity on the Station. Or just watch it live.

    on a space station nobody wants but can’t get rid of.

    I seem to recall that the decision to extend ISS to 2020 was made with bipartisan support in your congress, but feel free to correct me.

    In any case even majority opposition to it in the US would hardly inform such a statement, as in the rest of the partcipating nations the station enjoys steady public support.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi FG –

    “But merely to insure the rare, significant impact doesn’t occur?’

    Significant impacts are not as rare as you imagine.

    “Being a ‘passenger on Earth’ is not ‘spacefaring’ any more than riding North America across its surface via continental drift is ‘seafaring.’”

    Ah, but it is, as like most ships, we do have certain life support systems that need to be maintained. And we have to remain afloat.

    As for where we dock, that’s the future, always, hopefully.

    “Given adequate warning of such objects”

    The warning technologies were looked at by a group of engineers at NASA Langley – they analyzed the problem down to photons in a CCD bucket.
    They came up with CAPS.

    (I need to add here that I think there is a lower cost lunar architecture available to implement CAPS than the one proposed by NASA Langley – specifically the use of lunar orbiting fuel depots and landing frames.)

    “our response will be to launch something adequate to do the deflection.”

    What is needed for deflection is EARLY detection, the earlier the better.

    While NASA and JPL have demonstrated the navigation capabilities, the travel times clearly call for a larger vehicle than a small or medium launcher. Medium heavy is as low as you can go, and do you really want to be cheap in this?

    Further, the only way any launch vehicle and deflection package could be prepared is with an EARLY as possible warning, including sufficient data about the potential impactor’s composition and size. And NASA Langley’s estimate was that that will require more than free space based instruments.

    If Administrator Bolden would “relieve” Ed Weiler and bring in say, Donna Shirley, then I’m certain better engineering abilities would be available to NASA, and possibly prevent the massive budget overruns we’ve seen in space science projects.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi AW –

    “Had the ISS and the shuttle program been terminated immediately in 2003 we would now be exploring the moon and asteroids with Orion/Altair.”

    Your making some big assumptions here. Such as that the taxpayers would want their money spent on simply “exploring” the moon and asteroids.

    It is most certain that they do not want to pay what ATK is asking to do it.

    The utilization of ISS has barely started, and that’s another mess that Griffin left for Bolden to fix.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi VS –

    I think that it is pointless to try and talk engineering to the folks here, as they just don’t understand it.

    The choices for fuel transfer for Moon work then comes down to hypergolics or perhaps say hydrogen peroxide/alcohol. I’d tend to go with hypergolics given the current budget climate.

  • common sense

    @ Frank Glover wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    What I think is sad is that there is a good point to be made about impact. But what I read from the likes of VirgilSamms is that in order to protect us and to make sure our civilization does not go extinct that we need a SD HLV. Not any HLV mind you, a SD HLV. Preferably one HLV with ATK motors on its side. I mean it is not serious. It so little serious that I am sure ATK would balked at the support of those ImpactFirsters if I may

    I can easily see a constellation of satellites (pun? nah not my style) directed towards the observation of space. I can see we need to devise some planetary defense system. But come on if Levy-Shoemaker was to hit us??? What good would an HLV would be? We’d send 2 astronauts to watch it all and then what? They’d have nowhere to go back to.

    NEO monitoring lacks budget. What if tomorrow the SpaceX of the world can send the said monitoring satellites up there and we get enough warning of something survivable? What is there to hate so much about that?

    I wish they’d make a real argument for their cause. But they don’t. They just warn of impending doom and provide no solution.

    Very weird.

  • Hello to everybody in Blog-Land. Castro here. Look, let me back up a bit, plus clarify my position: I am NOT one to denigrate the great engineering know-how of our American technologists. To the contrary; I believe our technological know-how is second to none. But to expect something great & worthwhile to emerge out of all this mess—Obamaspace, Flexible Path, Commercial Space. No matter what you frigging call it! Without a government program being behind it, all those companies’ efforts are going to move rudderless. There is NO steam behind it! Don’t you all get it?! Without a grand governmental scheme guiding the effort, the whole march goes nowhere! Look at the quest to construct a new heavy lift rocket, in absence of a new Lunar program: Engineers have NO definable parameters with which to design it. Exactly what specific spacecraft is going to be flown on it? When Constellation was still on, we knew that the heavy-lift launcher was required to be able to lift the Altair lunar lander plus the accompanying earth departure stage; which in turn needed to be able to LAUNCH OUT OF EARTH ORBIT both the Orion craft & the Altair, into a translunar trajectory. That governmental game plan would be the mother of the invention! Just like the Saturn 5 rocket had the Apollo dual Moon-ship plus the earth escape stage to send Moonward. Then, as an afterthought dividend, the Skylab station was capable of being sent to space—a redesign of the earth escape stage into a new configuration. Yes, even in those Glory Days, contracts were handed out, by the government to aerospace engineering companies; but the companies were being directed to do a specific job as part of a national grand plan, handed down by astute political leadership from above, funded by Congress. This is VERY very different than the ways that Commercial Space is now slated to work.

  • Robert G. Oler

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    “. Liberty with the orion capsule and LAS will make it into orbit before a Falcon 9 ever carries anybody; most of the work is done while SpaceX has not even tested anything”

    as unrealistic as they sometimes are we all have our dreams Liberty’s “second stage” is not capable “now” of air starting…Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Frank Glover wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    “…And it’s only that. A metaphor that should not be taken too literally. Real spaceships have some degree of direction, control and a destinati”

    I dont like the spaceship earth metaphor either and not to be argumentative but the above criteria rules out almost all the satellites in orbit around the earth or Moon, or Sun today.

    Pioneer V and 6 long ago lost the ability to control their direction or change their destination and they really donthave a destination but P 6 at least keeps beeping and is clearly a “spaceship”.

    Why I challenge this notion is that frequently it is used by some (not you) to challenge the notion that ISS has any value because “it is just going around in circles”.

    read most of the comments here by people advocating a Moon or Mars or something “destination” goal for the US HSF program and thats about only criteria that they care about …ie that “we go someplace”…and really it is not “we” that are going it is in their minds a bunch of NASA astronauts who send back pictures and junk to the folks who are mostly stuck on the ground.

    Mark Whittington use to draw the analogy between uncrewed and crewed missions by saying its the difference between going to and looking at pictures of the Pyramids…as if Mark or most of the American people had any chance at all of “going” on any NASA sponsored trip to the Moon (or anywhere else). Mark would participate in Cx at about the same level as he would participate in the Lunar Orbiter around the Moon…looking at the pictures.

    Robert G. Oler

  • E.P. Grondine

    HI RGO –

    “and really it is not “we” that are going it is in their minds a bunch of NASA astronauts who send back pictures and junk to the folks who are mostly stuck on the ground.”

    You have to remember that you are not dealing with space engineers, but rather with Mars cultists – hence the thought stopping language. Once you can take on those thought stopping words in any argument, you’ve nearly won it. But it will p*ss the cultists off.

    Like I said before, the first thing to go is language.

    “I don’t like the spaceship earth metaphor”
    As far as metaphors go, it is far closer to the truth than “frontier” metaphors, as you point out in your analysis of the use of “we”.
    Nearly all of us “we” are passengers on spaceship Earth.

    Hi CC –

    “Look at the quest to construct a new heavy lift rocket, in absence of a new Lunar program: Engineers have NO definable parameters with which to design it. Exactly what specific spacecraft is going to be flown on it?”

    Griffin’s Moon program was nothing more than test flights for manned Mars flight, and he designed the Ares 5 to do that, relying on Thiokol’s political support to get it through, and doing his best to cut off all alternatives to Ares 1/Ares 5.

    If we take a look at the Utah delegation’s political power, we can see why that made sense to Griffin; if we look at Thiokol’s performance and costs, we can see that it makes no sense at all.

    Hi FG –

    “what if Levy-Shoemaker was to hit us???”

    Its not a question of “if”, its a question of “when”. But Shoemaker-Levy type impacts are very rare in the solar system. Even the KT impacts were about 1/20 of SL-9.

    “NEO monitoring lacks budget.”

    Yes – and note that the CR did not address this with specific language.

    “What if tomorrow the SpaceX of the world can send the said monitoring satellites up there and we get enough warning of something survivable? What is there to hate so much about that?”

    Mars cultists view anything that diverts NASA from flying a few men to Mars for a few days as evil.

    “I wish they’d make a real argument for their cause. But they don’t. They just warn of impending doom and provide no solution.

    Very weird.”

    Yes, very weird indeed, as the detection requirements have been defined, the navigational techniques tested, the physics packages for diversion have been constructed before for other purposes.

    So then why do many people say there is nothing we can do about it, using worst case examples?

  • ChrisC

    Umm VS what are you talking about regarding cryogenic storage? How would moving liquid hydrogen be harder than say moving liquid helium? Granted it is smaller and can leak more easily through a container, but why does this need be a showstopper? Is there any maths which you can show that supports claims that it isn’t practical? The WISE mission had a solid store of hydrogen for months.

    What is this ‘cold welding’ of which you speak. I couldn’t find any explanation that would be enhanced by cooling to cryo-temperatures. If fact the explanations I find state that higher temperatures aid in the process and that ‘cold’ only refers to the metals not being molten at any point.

    You imply that any other fuel would need a spacecraft of battlestar proportions. Do you have any evidence that space radiation is really that much of a problem. From the literature I’ve read radiation exposure and long term biological damage aren’t linearly related. People tend to get exposed to high levels of radiation for short periods or low levels for long periods. Long term moderate levels aren’t well studied, and there are suggestions that the best route to combat radiation damage would be by biological means. So additional proteins that specialise in DNA damage, enhanced ways to remove damaged molecules or new methods that can identify and kill tumors whilst still small. Personally I’d rather spend a few hundred million coming up with biological methods that a) make us more suitable for surviving in space and b) would have valuable spin offs here on earth. Rather than spending billions lifting shielding off earth.

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 1:28 am

    To the contrary; I believe our technological know-how is second to none.

    But for some reason you think that knowledge only exists within the government, and not throughout the aerospace & technology industries as a whole.

    Without a government program being behind it, all those companies’ efforts are going to move rudderless.

    “those companies” have business plans, and though part of their projected customer base is the government, they are not 100% dependent on NASA.

    But just to get some clarification, since the aerospace industry is so large, who is “those companies”? Do you include Boeing, ATK and OSC? Because they have commercial plans that they are pushing – are they rudderless?

    And what does rudderless mean exactly? Each of those companies is pursuing the market that they feel will be profitable, which is the normal capitalist way to do things. Some may fail, some may succeed – space is no different than any other high-risk market, so why are you complaining that companies are trying to broaden our reach into space? Isn’t that a good thing?

    I just don’t get your denigration of non-government entities – are you sure you believe in the American way?

  • common sense

    @ E.P. Grondine wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 11:22 am

    “Its not a question of “if”, its a question of “when”.”

    No not really and as you say below. The question of “when” is for an impact. The “if” is the question related to a Levy-Shoemaker event.

    “But Shoemaker-Levy type impacts are very rare in the solar system. Even the KT impacts were about 1/20 of SL-9.”

    Indeed. My point is about a multiple impact one time event. I don’t know for sure but I doubt that no matter how many HLV you got there would be a solution that saves the planet and our civilization. You know we have strong storms every year on earth. Those storms are increasingly powerful. They happen EVERY year. Don’t you think the priority ought to be to understand why and see whether we can mitigate those effects. Before any multi-hundred-billion dollar investment in planetary defense as you seem to advocate. In your case observation would go a long way, much farther than any HLV of any kind. The focus ought to be observation and some mitigation at this time.

    “Mars cultists view anything that diverts NASA from flying a few men to Mars for a few days as evil.”

    Well it can be said of any one with a single-idea mind be it Mars, the Moon or… Impacts.

    “So then why do many people say there is nothing we can do about it, using worst case examples?”

    Assuming everything else. Because “you” don’t know how to make a case. Doom and gloom with very low probability essentially kills your case. What if you are right? Well… What if the impact is tomorrow, in one hour, next second? You need to make a case, a FINANCIAL case. Solid. No ifs no whens or they need to be addressed with other than “we need a mega rocket”. Make a darn good case for observation/monitoring and slow down the rhetoric on mega rockets.

    I think NEOs MUST be monitored more than we do, just in case. At the same time not only do we need to look at space based prevention but also at earth based mitigation. Is there a plan in case of an impact? A small? A big? Not too big mind you…

    Oh well…

  • VirgilSamms

    “as unrealistic as they sometimes are we all have our dreams Liberty’s “second stage” is not capable “now” of air starting…Robert G. Oler”

    Specifically addressed by the head of the company in the original press release; he said this can happen very quickly and they already air start the “third” stage which is also hydrogen oxygen I believe.

    Pyro starters are just big sparklers. I do not think that is going to be a problem. It’s going to happen,

    The stick is back.

  • VirgilSamms

    “You need to make a case, a FINANCIAL case.”

    The case makes itself. There are craters all over the planet detected with satellites, recent airbursts detected in the atmosphere. Tunguska.

    You idiots can scoff and naysay but the evidence is plain and the threat is real. If we ignore it we risk the destruction of civilization or extinction.

    It is pathetic the arguments against anything not in the infomercial for private space jaunts to the ISS.

  • common sense

    @ VirgilSamms wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    “The case makes itself.”

    No it does not.

    “There are craters all over the planet detected with satellites, recent airbursts detected in the atmosphere. Tunguska.”

    So how are you doing with your case? Any progress? Care to take your head out of… the sand?

    “You idiots can scoff and naysay but the evidence is plain and the threat is real. If we ignore it we risk the destruction of civilization or extinction.”

    I see now I am an idiot? Okay then good luck with your “proposal”. Check again in 20 years see how it went for you.

    “It is pathetic the arguments against anything not in the infomercial for private space jaunts to the ISS.”

    Maybe you should join ATK see how they like you.

  • VirgilSamms

    “The choices for fuel transfer for Moon work then comes down to hypergolics or perhaps say hydrogen peroxide/alcohol. I’d tend to go with hypergolics given the current budget climate.”

    Sometimes the original solution is still the best solution. The best solution to getting to the moon is still the way we did it the first time- with a liquid hydrogen upper stage on an HLV. It works. Why go through the expense of building one in orbit? Because little rockets with obsolete propellants are all private space can afford? A liquid hydrogen rocket is an expensive machine- it requires a turbopump with 10 times the power of a kerosene rocket. That and the higher operating temperatures and pressures make it out of reach of Musk and the other hobby rocketeers. There is no substitute for a high energy upper stage. It is impractical to store or transfer liquid hydrogen. So that makes the HLV the best way to go to the moon. Physics have not changed since 1969.

  • Dennis Berube

    Mars one way, or Mars Direct as its called, has gained some momentum! Landing a few colonist on the surface with enough equipment to survive, doesnt sound bad. I would be for it if it was done right..

  • Martijn Meijering

    If we ignore it we risk the destruction of civilization or extinction.

    Even if we accept this argument, how does that argue in favour of HLV or against fair, competitive and redundant procurement? Protection against asteroids is not an argument for SDLV.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Protection against asteroids is not an argument for SDLV.”

    I completely disagree with that statement. Protection is by far the most important reason for Sidemount. Fair competitive redundant procurement is not part of this; there is no competition with Sidemount timewise, liftwise, or in any way. There is nothing else on this planet that can lift more in the same amount of time. There is no competition so there is no redundant system- there does not have to be with hardware that has been developed for 30 years and has put over a 100 payloads into orbit without fail. In addition to protection it will open up the solar system to exploration and colonization- the ony way to do that is through the funding protection will get from the DOD. It is not a flexible path- it is very narrow.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Okay then good luck with your “proposal”. Check again in 20 years see how it went for you.”

    Like I said, You idiots can scoff and naysay but the evidence is plain and the threat is real.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Why go through the expense of building one in orbit?

    Because, just like with multi-stage rockets, you can delivery more mass to your destination when you either refuel in LEO, or meet up with an EDS.

    Apollo did it all in one launch because they were constrained budget & capability-wise, not because they wouldn’t have done it any differently.

    Today we don’t have the same constraints capability-wise that Apollo did, so we can do more, and not be constrained by their limitations.

    There is no substitute for a high energy upper stage.

    High energy or not, all that matters is how much mass you can put in orbit, and the ultimate measure of that is the $/kg. If a rocket that is 90% efficient costs half of one that is 99% efficient, then of course you’re going to go with the 90% one, and use two if needed.

    It is impractical to store or transfer liquid hydrogen.

    Real rocket scientists disagree with you. Get used to disappointment.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Sometimes the original solution is still the best solution. The best solution to getting to the moon is still the way we did it the first time- with a liquid hydrogen upper stage on an HLV.

    Correction, a hypergolic lander on top of a cryogenic stage. With Lagrange rendez-vous you could still launch an Apollo-sized lander fully fueled to L1/L2 with a Centaur. And a fully fueled Centaur can be launched on a Delta-IV Heavy, much like the DIRECT people wanted to lift their EDS, with the difference that they’d use two stages whereas the EELV solution would use three. Another difference is that the DIRECT approach requires development of two new stages, whereas the EELV doesn’t require any, although the wide body Centaur would be nice, giving us EELV Phase 1 as a freebie. No HLV needed.

    Why go through the expense of building one in orbit?

    Straw man, no one was proposing that.

    A liquid hydrogen rocket is an expensive machine- it requires a turbopump with 10 times the power of a kerosene rocket. That and the higher operating temperatures and pressures make it out of reach of Musk and the other hobby rocketeers.

    Doubtful, though it may well be beyond the abilities of today’s MSFC. It certainly isn’t beyond the abilities of PWR.

    There is no substitute for a high energy upper stage.

    That argues for a LOX / LH2 high energy upper stage, not for an HLV. Probably Centaur or a Centaur derivative. Incidentally, hypergolic high energy upper stages do exist, in fact MSFC wanted to build one for the Shuttle before the loss of Columbia.

    It is impractical to store or transfer liquid hydrogen.

    Difficult, not impractical. The art will be mastered. Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for that. Fully fueled Centaurs can be launched on a Delta-IV Heavy and storable propellant is good enough for spacecraft. In fact they are excellent for spacecraft, which is why cryogenic spacecraft don’t exist. So not only are you wrong in your claim they are obsolete, you are going against your stated intention to only use conservative technologies.
    If you only fuel (and refuel) spacecraft once they get to L1/L2, you can easily transport any dry payload that will fit on a Delta-IV Heavy to L1/L2 with a Centaur. And with that refueling at L1/L2 you can land supersized payloads on the moon.

    So that makes the HLV the best way to go to the moon. Physics have not changed since 1969.

    That argument was as false in 1969 as it is today. Back then it may have been the fastest way to get to the moon, although I doubt it, but not the best way. Von Braun for one didn’t believe it was the best way, he wanted propellant transfer.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Protection is by far the most important reason for Sidemount.

    Protection doesn’t require an HLV, but – like exploration – it needs a spacecraft, i.e. precisely the sort of thing that is being starved for funding by SLS. We already have launch vehicles that are more than up to the task. Sidemount is also not the best choice if you did want an HLV. Sidemount (like all SDLVs) is the choice of fanbois and people who want to protect their phoney baloney jobs.

    Fair competitive redundant procurement is not part of this; there is no competition with Sidemount timewise, liftwise, or in any way.

    EELV Phases 1 and 2 and maybe even 3 would be better choices.

    In addition to protection it will open up the solar system to exploration and colonization

    No it won’t, it will be far too expensive for that, unless you count putting a handful of people a year on the moon as opening up the solar system. And if you believe – against all evidence – that the Shuttle mafia in Huntsville and Houston won’t screw things up again as they have done so many times in the past three decades.

    Let me remind you of Akin’s 39th law of spacecraft design:

    39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
    1) No new launch vehicles.
    2) No new launch vehicles.
    3) Whatever you do, don’t decide to develop any new launch vehicles.

    The solar system won’t be opened up before LEO is, and LEO cannot be considered to have been opened up until significant numbers of people can afford to go their on their own dime, without any ongoing government subsidies. As far as I can see that means it requires cheap lift, not heavy lift. I know you don’t believe in cheap lift, or at least you say you don’t. In that case the solar system will never be opened up.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I notice you are dodging the cryogenic transfer storage issue. Wise- it is a real can of worms.

    I’m deliberately proposing we remove it (as well as the need for an HLV) from the critical path while making sure depots still get funded and can be used as soon as they become available. That to me seems like a wise way to deal with something that is both highly desirable and technically challenging but not necessary for something that is crucial (cheap lift). In the mean time the combination of refuelable spacecraft using storable propellant and fully fueled cryogenic upper stages launched on EELV-class vehicles will give us most of the benefits of cryogenic propellant transfer: exploration beyond LEO and a large and competitive market for propellant launches.

    As for storable propellant- if you look at the ISP of the storables and calculate how much will be needed to fly an adequately shielded spacecraft BEO- you get battlestar galactica.

    I have actually done the sums and I found the problem was quite manageable as long as you restrict use of hypergolics to the segment L1/L2 to beyond (and even back!), leaving LEO to L1/L2 to cryogenic stages, most likely Centaur or DCSS. Initially the cryogenic stages could be launched separately and fully fueled on an EELV Heavy for EOR in the same way as Constellation (or DIRECT) intended to do. Once cryogenic depots became available, you could launch them dry and only fuel them once in LEO.

    This approach would give us most of the bang (and do so very soon) for much less than the total amount of bucks. A good strategy in general, but especially in times of shrinking budgets.

  • VirgilSamms

    It is impractical to store or transfer liquid hydrogen.

    “Difficult, not impractical. The art will be mastered. Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for that. Fully fueled Centaurs can be launched on a Delta-IV Heavy and storable propellant is good enough for spacecraft. In fact they are excellent for spacecraft, which is why cryogenic spacecraft don’t exist. So not only are you wrong in your claim they are obsolete, you are going against your stated intention to only use conservative technologies.”

    If you mean spacecraft as in BEO, there have never been any so you are imagining things. If you are calling Apollo BEO then you are wrong again because it took an HLV with hydrogen upper stages to get that “space craft” to the moon.

    A BEO spacecraft will require massive radiation shielding. I will just keep repeating this because everyone just keeps ignoring it.

    Like I said before, It is pathetic the arguments against anything not in the infomercial for private space jaunts to the ISS.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    Like I said before, It is pathetic the arguments against anything not in the infomercial for private space jaunts to the ISS.

    And what you don’t realize is that any exploration plan that depends on the whims of Congress is doomed for mediocrity. Just as Congress cancelled Constellation with broad bipartisan support, they can cancel any future big ticket programs that don’t meet their budget needs.

    $20B/year doesn’t buy very much, and so far Congress hasn’t even funded a payload for the SLS, and complex payloads take at least a decade to get ready for launch.

    Get used to disappointment, because you’re in for a lot of it.

  • common sense

    @VirgilSamms wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    “A BEO spacecraft will require massive radiation shielding. I will just keep repeating this because everyone just keeps ignoring it.”

    Are you really? Going to repeat this? Great. I was afraid you might try something new. Ever heard of this? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001926/

  • @ VirgilSamms; on your March 7th, 3:21 pm Comment: Hi There! THANKS FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING about what I largely meant in my second-to-the-last Comment. I am NEITHER anti-American, NOR anti-the-aerospace industry. I merely see a really bad elixer being brewed here. THE GOVERNMENT WILL STILL BE NEEDED, and with the future of American manned spaceflight being tossed toward the highest bidder, at corporations which are driven soley by the need to make profit—and that affecting the decision of what will now get built or not get built—all the indicators are that the nation will get a grossly inferior spacefaring capability, limited ONLY to Low Earth Orbit, and nothing else. Worse, the space taxis will be stripped down versions of anything that has ever flown into space before. The space entrepreneurs DON’T have to ever concern themselves with a vehicle that could leave the ‘safety’ of being under the Van Allen Belts.

  • Martijn Meijering

    If you mean spacecraft as in BEO, there have never been any so you are imagining things.

    I didn’t say manned spacecraft. My point was that cryogenic propellant is an unproven technology for spacecraft and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future – at least for long duration applications, which exploration in translunar space would be.

    If you are calling Apollo BEO then you are wrong again because it took an HLV with hydrogen upper stages to get that “space craft” to the moon.

    First of all, Apollo wasn’t beyond earth orbit at all. As for the HLV, if they had transferred the lander and capsule separately, with L1/L2 rendez-vous and if they had used EOR with a separately launched EDS (as Constellation and DIRECT wanted to do) then they would have needed neither an HLV nor cryogenic propellant transfer. Or even any kind of propellant transfer because the lander was small enough to be transported fully fueled.

    The reason I’m in favour of using propellant transfer is that it would create a substantial market for small launchers which I believe would lead to a breakthrough in commercial launch prices. It would also allow you to land supersized payloads on the moon or to propel a Nautilus style spacecraft to high Mars orbit. I’ve pointed this out before and you still haven’t addressed my argument. Your claim that either an HLV or cryogenic propellant transfer is necessary has been disproven.

    A BEO spacecraft will require massive radiation shielding. I will just keep repeating this because everyone just keeps ignoring it.

    No, you merely claim people are ignoring it when they’re not. Launching massive amounts of radiation shielding can be done without an HLV, because the ideal forms of shielding (water, polyethylene slabs) are easily divisible and can be installed by the crew from inside the spacecraft, without even needing spacewalks.

  • @Martijn Meijering;…. Read my lips: APOLLO WAS BEO!!! All these Flexible Path jokesters want to sell the public on the outright LIE that Apollo never left LEO in order to trivialize the acheivement!! That way, when they talk about manned asteroid missions they will deceptively SEEM to have credibility. APOLLO LEFT LEO NINE TIMES: Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17!!! All expeditions between December 1968 through December 1972. The astronauts reached Lunar orbit, plus Lunar landing, and in the unexpected case of Apollo 13, attained a Lunar flyby. If all that wasn’t Beyond Earth Orbit, then I don’t know what is!!

  • Martijn Meijering

    APOLLO WAS BEO!!!

    Apollo was beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), not beyond Earth orbit (BEO). The moon is in Earth orbit you know…

Leave a Reply to E.P. Grondine 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>