“Ron: just because a hab module isn’t in the FY 12 budget request doesn’t mean one won’t appear down the line (say, FY 14 or 15).”

I think you have me confused with Space Cadet and his discussion about hab modules.

“…which is what Professor Ed Crawley and Jeff Greason…”

Let’s talk about this obsession you have for Ed Crawley for a minute. He seems like a decent sort, and his thoughts on space exploration seem fine, but you seem to focus on only his recommendations.

Isn’t there anyone else around whose ideas you also agree with?

“You’ll need one [a hab module] for long-duration flights anyway…”

NASA already has a concept vehicle for exploration called Nautilus-X, which is the type of vehicle that I think we’ll need to do some serious exploration. Sure you can stick a hab module on capsule, like what Zubrin has suggested for his minimum viable Mars mission. I think we’ll see a number of low cost attempts like that, but real space-only reusable spaceships like Nautilus-X are what we’ll need to evolve for true space exploration.

“He’s [Administrator Bolden] just not a good communicator when he shows up on The Hill. ”

Michael Griffin was a good communicator, and we ended up with Constellation. Being a good communicator is not a predictor of good things.

It’s not speaking skills that are most important, but judgement and leadership skills.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, however Elon Musk is not a polished speaker. But as his resume can attest he has excellent judgement and great leadership skills.

Bolden is a proven leader, rising up the Marine Corp ranks to Major General. The military is not known for turning out great speakers, but they are known for their great leaders, but major changes in a 18,800 person government organization are slow to show.

In any case, NASA needs stability right now, since they have so many important things going on, so any changes at the top, especially in a big election year, won’t be a good idea. Likely no changes will happen until after the presidential election.

My $0.02

NASA has decades of experience building and flying vehicles – they are not ready to fly MPCV today but no one should discount their support and ability. Yet people such as yourself “The support of the workforce is set but not of the MPCV vehicle or any vehicle for that matter.” see the strong support for MPCV/Orion in the Congress and just don’t get it.

When has NASA last built a manned spacecraft?

In World War 2, the German army had lots of advantages. They had short supply lines, they fought on familiar ground, they had well designed equipment (frequently better than the Allies). They were crushed by the sheer logistics of the Allies. SpaceX is nimble, creative, and has the coolness factor. NASA has enormous resources – people, laboratories, funding. The Congress is highly motivated to ensure that continues – they will snip here and there but NASA will still have well over 17 billion dollars next year – what will SpaceX have?

W T F
SpaceX is not at war with NASA.

This misguided attempt at an analogy is a prime example of how people cannot grasp the concept of the “private-public partnership” pursued by the commercial crew and cargo programs. Is it really that hard?

I do wish someone other than Charlie Bolden was NASA Administrator, though. He’s just not a good communicator when he shows up on The Hill. Admiral Steadle (who was the alternative to Mike Griffin) would’ve been a better choice, but that’s just me. One gets the impression that he’s like a gladiator going into the arena whenever he shows up to testify.

“The ISS should have been de-orbited by circa 2015, just as was previously planned. THAT would’ve liberated more money for the building of the Constellation Lunar exploration systems & vehicles.”

I guess you’re ignorant of the fact that the Griffin budget for Constellation already assumed that the ISS would be defunded, and it’s funds allocated to Constellation. That was the plan from Constellation’s inception.

There were no more funds for Constellation to consume, and it still kept slipping it’s schedule.

“Plus a lot of people out there are deluded into thinking that if it were eliminated, that “there would be no place for our astronauts to go.””

No delusion needed – it’s a fact. The Constellation program, as funded, would have only provided us with a few short trips to the Moon – weeks of time in space, with a lot of the time cooped up in a minivan-sized capsule of four “close” co-workers. How glorious.

The ISS is providing us with experience & knowledge about living and working in space, which if we want to be a space faring nation, we need.

The Moon will wait while we build up cost effective ways to return, and when we do I hope it is to stay. Short-term golfing excursions like Constellation was going to do would have been a waste of time, and left no reusable assets in space. I’m glad Congress killed it.

Next up is the SLS.

Orion and HLV, although they provide a potential technical approach to BEO human spaceflight, are unaffordable for this purpose since the Apollo-era geopolitical rationale no longer exists, and are inappropriate for LEO logistics. It is hard for me to see any future for them except as jobs programs for congressional constituencies. BEO flight will become practical only when far less expensive technology is available.

“Yes I did, that is one reason I am excited about the promise of Dragon. You could consider reading the title of this discussion. It is about Congressional support for MPCV.”

So what?

“NASA has decades of experience building and flying vehicles – they are not ready to fly MPCV today but no one should discount their support and ability. ”

Absolutely not true. They have decades of experience “flying vehicles” NOT “building vehicles”. Cite one since Shuttle. And I mean crew vehicle of course.

“Yet people such as yourself “The support of the workforce is set but not of the MPCV vehicle or any vehicle for that matter.” see the strong support for MPCV/Orion in the Congress and just don’t get it.”

When are you going to understand that there is no support? Do you know what it takes to design, build and operate and MPCV/SLS system? I do. And the budget is not there to do that. The budget is there to sustain the workforce. Come on please a little effort.

“People hear Elon Musk claim to cut costs, fly frequently, etc etc and believe him uncritically. People hear NASA claim that and hoot in disbelief. Sure NASA has a long track record and SpaceX has a short track record. The fact that SpaceX has a short resume should not cause us to over estimate their abilities.”

This argument is pointless. In the same time, or close, it took NASA to fly Ares 1X, Space X flew F1, F9 and Dragon successfully to orbit and back. Please.

“In World War 2, the German army had lots of advantages. They had short supply lines, they fought on familiar ground, they had well designed equipment (frequently better than the Allies). They were crushed by the sheer logistics of the Allies. SpaceX is nimble, creative, and has the coolness factor. NASA has enormous resources – people, laboratories, funding. The Congress is highly motivated to ensure that continues – they will snip here and there but NASA will still have well over 17 billion dollars next year – what will SpaceX have?”

NASA might have $17B but it is for ALL of NASA. HSF will have around $10B or less. What are you saying? That NASA can waste large amounts of money? Yes I agree.

See you need to learn what it takes to design, build and operate LVs and RVs and you’ll see that the ridiculous amount given to NASA will make it yet another failure. But you can still “think” you’re right. OR you can learn. Whatever you please.

“Yeah, I think that he was talking about the other “powerpoints”, i.e. Falcon Heavy (and its cost structure) and flying people on Dragon. Both are possible but haven’t been done yet. In many ways they are as close to reality as MPCV and SLS. Perhaps their only advantage is they won’t need as much money, at least according to current estimates.”

Which has most credibility to you? A company that flew to orbit a vehicle (LV and RV) or NASA that hasn’t? No matter the cost.

“I’m trying to wean myself off of the unhealthy habit of assuming that, just because a company or agency says it wants to do something and it can at least hypothetically do it, that means that it will do it.”

I agree with healthy skepticism BUT it must go both ways and so far for whatever reason NASA has failed us. Not SpaceX.

Yes I did, that is one reason I am excited about the promise of Dragon. You could consider reading the title of this discussion. It is about Congressional support for MPCV.

NASA has decades of experience building and flying vehicles – they are not ready to fly MPCV today but no one should discount their support and ability. Yet people such as yourself “The support of the workforce is set but not of the MPCV vehicle or any vehicle for that matter.” see the strong support for MPCV/Orion in the Congress and just don’t get it.

People hear Elon Musk claim to cut costs, fly frequently, etc etc and believe him uncritically. People hear NASA claim that and hoot in disbelief. Sure NASA has a long track record and SpaceX has a short track record. The fact that SpaceX has a short resume should not cause us to over estimate their abilities.

In World War 2, the German army had lots of advantages. They had short supply lines, they fought on familiar ground, they had well designed equipment (frequently better than the Allies). They were crushed by the sheer logistics of the Allies. SpaceX is nimble, creative, and has the coolness factor. NASA has enormous resources – people, laboratories, funding. The Congress is highly motivated to ensure that continues – they will snip here and there but NASA will still have well over 17 billion dollars next year – what will SpaceX have?

Yeah, I think that he was talking about the other “powerpoints”, i.e. Falcon Heavy (and its cost structure) and flying people on Dragon. Both are possible but haven’t been done yet. In many ways they are as close to reality as MPCV and SLS. Perhaps their only advantage is they won’t need as much money, at least according to current estimates.

I’m trying to wean myself off of the unhealthy habit of assuming that, just because a company or agency says it wants to do something and it can at least hypothetically do it, that means that it will do it.

“Like many people, I feel the commercial space providers are bringing excitement back to a very moribund (been looking for a place to slip that word in) industry. But many people give the commercial folks a lot of credit for promises and do not give the government team the same benefit of the doubt. ”

it is hard to do that when the “government team” has spent 12 billion dollars already and has little to show for it RGO