Congress, NASA

Still waiting on an SLS decision

For some time NASA officials, including administrator Charles Bolden, have said that a decision on the design of the Space Launch System (SLS) would come “soon”. For example, in Bolden’s speech at the National Press Club on July 1, he said NASA was nearing a decision on the SLS “and will announce that soon.” Four days later, in an online chat, Bolden reiterated that “we’ll be making an announcement soon”, adding that since “this is one of the most important and most expensive decisions we will make for the next decade… I want to make sure we get it right.”

But when exactly is “soon”? This week? This month? This summer? It appears that the last option—this summer—is the most accurate one. In several press briefings at the Kennedy Space Center on July 7, the day before the launch of Atlantis, both Bolden and NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver provided a few more details about the SLS decisionmaking process. “We are very close to selecting a design for the rocket,” Garver said at a briefing about the MPCV. She said that an independent cost evaluation of SLS designs was currently in progress, one of the last major steps before making an SLS decision and announcement; she said after another briefing that this evaluation would be done by late July or early August. “We still hope to be able to announce, I think, by the end of the summer.”

Garver said at the briefing that the decision on the SLS is the administration’s to make, and no final decision has been made. Asked where in the administration the decision was being made—with the implication that the decision is being made by, or hung up in, an agency like OMB—Garver said, “We’re one team in our administration.”

In a later news briefing, she disagreed with criticism that the agency was dragging its heels on the SLS decision. “It was only in April that we even had a budget that was passed for 2011″ that, among other things, finally allowed NASA to end the Constellation program, she said. “It is interesting to me that this has become an issue, that people believe we are not making progress because they don’t have the final design.”

Bolden, in his only appearance at a news conference at KSC before or immediately after the shuttle launch, emphasized the need to not rush into an SLS decision. “The decision on a heavy-lift launch vehicle is going to be a very critical and very expensive decision for the nation that’s got to carry us into this next era,” he said. “We’re close to making a decision on the configuration but not quite there.”

Bolden will have more opportunities to speak about the SLS decision status at a hearing this morning of the full House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. As the hearing’s charter notes, the hearing was originally planned “to examine NASA’s selection of a heavy-lift launch system”. With that selection still several weeks in the future, “the hearing will instead provide an opportunity for NASA to explain why it has failed to reach a decision, what analyses still need to be completed, and when the Space Launch System decisions will be forthcoming.”

86 comments to Still waiting on an SLS decision

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    According to Lori Garver, the SLS plan has cleared all NASA hurdles and is now awaiting an “independent cost estimate”, seemingly at the request of the OMB. YMMV whether this is genuine or a delaying tactic. I have no hope that today’s hearing before Congress will clarify this issue in any way.

  • Aggelos

    “But when exactly is “soon”? This week? This month? This summer?”

    This decade..

  • Robert G. Oler

    It shows one how out of touch the DIRECT people are …no victory announcement RGO

  • Curtis Quick

    They say that patience is a virtue and discretion is the better part of valor, but it seems that wiggle room may be short-lived. It may have been that the most prudent thing for Bolden to do up to now was to not make waves by publicly opposing the multi-billion, multi-year SLS and MPCV, but instead wait for the congressional appropriation committee to make their move. Well, now that a draft appropriation comes smack dab in the middle of executive and legislative branches arguing about hundred billion dollar budget cuts, this may be the time to quietly speak the truth.

    Bolden could well argue in all humility that the only SLS that America can afford right now is an inexpensive one and that an inexpensive one can only be gotten through an open bidding process. Bolden may even suggest that the proper asking price for such an SLS is just $2 to $3 billion total and should be based on existing or planned upgrades to existing vehicles, and even then be operated by commercial ventures.

    Hey, some in the commercial industry plan to have 50-ton payload launchers flying in the next two years. Some even claim to be working with NASA on 150 ton SHLV designs. And for an MPCV, perhaps NASA should just go with an already existing design purchased directly from the industry. That sure beats going back to the drawing board yet again and could shave years off of the time frame for an American launch system to enable us to free ourselves from our dependence on foreign launch systems to launch our astronauts.

    Such honesty might even be politically palatable just about now, especially in front of the American people.

  • tom

    According to folks @ MSFC the decision/announcement will take place in the next FY.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 9:12 am

    According to folks @ MSFC the decision/announcement will take place in the next FY.

    I would doubt that intel. So far Bolden has not been precise in when the decision will come, but he hasn’t mislead either.

    It will be hard for Congress to question the need for an independent outside cost review, especially in these hard budget times, but since NASA has already said end of summer they will be fair game for lots of Congressional “oversight” if nothings shows up by Labor Day.

    I would imagine the Administration wants it out as soon as possible too, since they would want to the costs estimates for influencing the upcoming budget legislation.

  • Donald Ernst

    It seems to me that it’s best to wait until Obama’s gone before selecting any design. We need a real replacement for the shuttle one designed for LEO passenger delivery and logistics that’s fully reusable and cost much less than the shuttle to operate. This was NASA’s future goal until it was derailed by Constellation.

  • Robert G. Oler

    It is almost joyous that the right wings issues on federal spending are going to derail the SLS and Webb Telescope, the former at least something that the right wing wants badly as its latest symbol of “maanhood”…LOL RGO

  • “The decision on a heavy-lift launch vehicle is going to be a very critical and very expensive decision for the nation that’s got to carry us into this next era,”

    Unfortunately, they don’t care how expensive it is, or if it ever even flies, as long as it continues to generate “jobs.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Hearings like this are where Charlie earns his money …he has to put up with some babbling from people (mostly GOP types) who are good at rhetoric but short on everything else…and then he gets back in the Limo, pours a cool one and drives back to the Office knowing that other then “harsh words” they dont have the balls (or political support) to do anything.

    No matter how the debt thing ends heavy cuts are coming at NASA and the programs which have no basis in reality are going away. As Jim Hillhouse put it, oh to be “an arch conservative” these days. To run around the country defending tax cuts for the uber rich while cutting programs for the middle class…and to defend rockets to no where that will never get built…while cutting school lunch programs.

    True patriots.

    RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    tom wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 9:12 am

    “According to folks @ MSFC the decision/announcement will take place in the next FY.”

    these are different people then the ones who had the decision/announcement taking place on July 8th…LOL

    The reality is this. NASA has no clue how much or how little money it will have until the debt issues are settled…RGO

  • Egad

    The autumnal equinox this year is September 23. Since that also happens to be a Friday, perhaps we’ll get the news late that afternoon.

    ;-), kind of.

  • Mark R, Whittington

    One thing is certain. It doesn’t much matter what is done for the next year and a half. Obama has broken the space program and it will take the next president to fix it.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Bolden made good points in his introductory remarks at the committee hearing today. That hearing was basically charted to string him up for not providing an SLS plan by the congressionally set deadline. At least an hour into it, the hearing failed to do that. It’s pretty simple. The SLS will be a large investment by the nation, of order tens of $B. NASA is refining cost estimates, and the nation deserves nothing less than responsible, careful cost estimates for such a major taxpayer investment. Bolden said that getting this right was quite possibly the most important task in his tenure as Administrator.

    What he didn’t say (very diplomatically) is that Congress has, in their presumed technical planning and management wisdom, used their legislative dart board to choose a date by which NASA should provide such a carefully vetted SLS plan. Rep. Hall never graced us with the rationale for this date, though he referred to it repeatedly. We should recall that the last NASA human space flight architecture program cratered fiscally in large part because it was developed as a 60-day rush job. That Congress is disappointed that authorized expenditures were not made on an incompletely vetted SLS system is Congress’ problem, not that of NASA or the Administration.

    Rep. Rohrabacher was considerably less diplomatic, and didn’t hesitate to step back and question the importance of an SLS to the space exploration future of this country. Somewhat remarkably, and refreshingly, Roharbacher carefully included science in the basket of space exploration goals, and was properly skeptical about selling out those science programs to pay for near term human space flight.

    Bolden was pretty convincing and assured here. He’s come a long way since he first took this job.

  • Coastal Ron

    Donald Ernst wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 10:25 am

    We need a real replacement for the shuttle one designed for LEO passenger delivery and logistics that’s fully reusable and cost much less than the shuttle to operate. This was NASA’s future goal until it was derailed by Constellation.

    Under the Bush/Griffin plan we would have abandoned LEO and left it for other nations to occupy. Maybe you’re forgetting that the Constellation program required our participation in the ISS to be ended by 2015? Likely we would have sold our interests to Russia or China – how ironic.

    Instead, Constellation’s architecture was oriented towards returning to the Moon in a very limited way (i.e. Griffin’s “Apollo on steroids” comment).

    Even if you wanted to do operations in LEO, the Orion spacecraft was not really usable for LEO operations since it only carried four crew, and couldn’t carry additional cargo unless they spent $Billions more to add a cargo ability. Also, it didn’t have an airlock, so EVA’s would be a big pain, and each mission would have cost almost as much as a Shuttle mission.

    But the big question that needs to be answered up front is what’s the need? Specifically, what are the tasks that are currently funded that would require something other than what the CRS and CCDev programs are doing?

    Maybe you’re talking about wishes, but since anything you wish for will cost at least ten’s of $Billions of dollars, your wishes better have a likely funding stream coming. Show us the money, then we’ll talk wishes.

  • Michael from Iowa

    @Curtis
    One can only hope that SOME good comes out of all this. Pushing for a hybrid public/private space program might be our only chance to continue manned spaceflight in the next decade.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R, Whittington wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 11:34 am

    “One thing is certain. It doesn’t much matter what is done for the next year and a half”

    it is as certain about the claims you made for Iraq or Bush’s go back to the Moon or well almost any other claims you are making these days…

    It will matter a lot what is done over the next year and one half.

    If Bush the last and his grand vision had actually gotten flight hardware into orbit and done something with it for the many years and 12=16 billion they spent on it…well we would be stuck with that hardware.

    As it is if in the next year and 1/2 SpaceX or OSC do actually get supplies up to the space station then commercial resupply is a done deal and it is the end of any big government attempts (such as you support) to bring that role back to the federal government. It also means that commerical lift for humans to orbit…is going to at least be given a try.

    In a year and 1/2 NASA HSF has shown that the only thing it can do with a project is project it over budget and delay the implementation schedule.

    in a year and 1/2 commercial will have flown payloads to the station.

    And then people like you will be like the people who made claims about Iraq…wrong.

    Meanwhile as you drum beat for a Sarah Palin candidacy, you can imagine what her space efforts would be like, the one in outer space, not in her mind. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 11:40 am

    “Bolden was pretty convincing and assured here. He’s come a long way since he first took this job.”

    nice recap…Hall BTW is a tottering old fool.

    When one takes a leap in pay grade it takes awhile to steer the horse instead of just hanging on, indeed just hanging on for a bit can be a good measure of success.

    Charlie clearly is driving the horse here. thanks for the recap RGO

  • E.P. Grondine

    If we remember the last time, ATK tied Constellation continuance to the continuing budget.

    This time, my guess is that the SLS architecture will be announced after action is taken on the debt.

  • Donald Ernst

    Why put money [digital or printed on another load of recycled cardboard or just deemed by congress to exist] into commerial crew expendables , when we have commerical expendable service already with the Russians? The ISS is only going to be operational until 2020 so SpaceX or some other similar system would only be used for a few years or so before ISS is deorbited. This economy will recover once the wrecking ball is replaced by a new President and it will be time for our nation to move forward again. We need to develop cheap to operate reuable manned craft.I doubt NASA could do that , certainly not in it’s current state. We need to establish the conditions that will allow the formation of real commerical development like removing anti-trust barriers and abolishing or seriously altering ITAR as well as creating pathways to multinational commmerial investments.

  • Egad

    > The SLS will be a large investment by the nation, of order tens of $B.

    And then, of course, the nation would have to spend whatever it cost to support the programs that would require 130-ton SLS payloads to execute. Whatever those programs and payloads might turn out to be, also of course.

  • tom

    Some of the comments about CxP and Orion are just wrong. Orion was designed to have in-space crewed operations for 4 people a total of 16 days. SpaceX can’t do that. Orion could orbit uncrewed while the astronauts worked on the lunar surface for 6 months. It could carry 4 people + cargo to ISS when needed. But the idea started by Griffin was to have commercial folks bring cargo up to ISS. Remember, Mike Griffin started commercial cargo. He also wanted to (when they showed the ability) have commercial provide crew transportation to ISS and other LEO points. This would free NASA up for exploration missions. 1st to the moon to establish a base, test out systems and then for trips to Mars and other places. It was a good plan. Everyone would win. Commercial crew/cargo got to take care of ISS (at a very subsidized rate) and NASA got to push out into the solar system. I worked Ares 1 and supported Orion. People who worked for me did Ares V. I know about what I speak. We had a very good plan in place. Now we get: commercial cargo to ISS starting 2012, commercial crew that will pay a dear price from congress in 2013 for what happened last year and NASA now gets to fly two missions a year to ISS with Orion on an EELV that will compete directly with any commercial crew effort. Beyond that NASA is going no place fast. Lori removed the awesome and added the suck.

  • Obama has broken the space program and it will take the next president to fix it.

    No, Mike Griffin broke the space program. Obama made a start at fixing it, but Congress won’t let him.

    Orion was designed to have in-space crewed operations for 4 people a total of 16 days. SpaceX can’t do that.

    Who says it can’t? Why can’t it?

    Why put money [digital or printed on another load of recycled cardboard or just deemed by congress to exist] into commerial crew expendables , when we have commerical expendable service already with the Russians?

    So we are using American companies, with American jobs, and not allowing Russia to continue to flout the Iran/North-Korea/Syria Non-Proliferation Act?

    The ISS is only going to be operational until 2020

    There is no fixed date for ISS retirement. It will be operational until at least 2020.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Donald Ernst wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    “The ISS is only going to be operational until 2020 so SpaceX or some other similar system would only be used for a few years or so before ISS is deorbited. This economy will recover once the wrecking ball is replaced by a new President and it will be time for our nation to move forward again”

    it is unlikely that ISS will be deorbited in 2020…unless the worlds economies have simply collapsed and we are in some really dark period…(possible actually given the state of affairs). What is more likely even given a sour economy is that ISS will become THE FOCUS of space activities for government and by 2020 new parts will be replacing old ones.

    As for the remark about a “wrecking ball”…that tells me that you are pretty one sided in your analysis and biased politically. There is no data that suggest that a new President alone will fix the issue any more then a new one in 08 fixed it.

    What the US might be going threw is a functional breakdown of its political system as practiced by the two parties. It is to early to tell for sure, but the hints are there that we are approaching a 1860 or 1929 type political reshape…ie the two parties if they emerge at all will be quite different or in Europe a 1914 time where the total politcial system(s) failed.

    See how the next three or so weeks turn out. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    tom wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
    ” I worked Ares 1 and supported Orion. People who worked for me did Ares V.” no wonder you feel like excrement…If I had put my time into Ares 1 with nothing to show for it…I would be upset as well. RGO

  • Bennett

    “Commercial crew/cargo got to take care of ISS (at a very subsidized rate) and NASA got to push out into the solar system.”

    Please explain what on earth you mean by “subsidized rate”?

    Perhaps you think NASA can help develop a rocket like F9 and then get to have deliveries for free?

    How is investing 500 million dollars for a system that can deliver cargo to the ISS for 60 million a shot a bad deal for NASA or the American taxpayer?

    Especially when compared to the cost of EELV pricing?

    That you don’t understand this basic principle lends credence to your claim that you worked on Ares 1.

  • Rhyolite

    What’s the rush? The last grand exploration architecture that was rushed out the door for political purposes – Constellation – made an enormous crater. Hacking something together without doing good engineering is only going to cause a repeat.

    Actually, I think the administrations original plan was a good one. Develop the supporting technologies, coming up with a good sustainable architecture, and making an HLV decision, if one is even necessary, sometime in the next 5 years

    Of course, I want to actually see something accomplished with my tax dollars other than just funneling them to few privileged congressional districts, which is why congress won’t go for anything rational.

  • That you don’t understand this basic principle lends credence to your claim that you worked on Ares 1.

    There is no requirement to understand accounting or economics or costs to work on Ares 1. In fact, it might have been a hindrance.

  • Bennett

    “In fact, it might have been a hindrance.”

    Or at the least, earned you a transfer out of the program…

  • DCSCA

    “We are very close to selecting a design for the rocket,” Garver said at a briefing about the MPCV. She said that an independent cost evaluation of SLS designs was currently in progress, one of the last major steps before making an SLS decision and announcement; she said after another briefing that this evaluation would be done by late July or early August. “We still hope to be able to announce, I think, by the end of the summer.”

    Any time after wheels stop and before the August recess would be appropriate but closer to October seems more likely. However, Garver is not the least bit qualified to be making any decisions regarding the selection/development of manned spacecraft or LV systems for the United States. She is a lobbyist by trade and the quicker she is jettisoned from NASA, the better.

    @tom wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 2:18 pm/Rand Simberg wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 2:31 pm “SpaceX can’t do that.” “SpaceX can’t do that.
    Who says it can’t? Why can’t it?” SpaceX’s own management says it for one, per their backgrounder for NBC News,as reported in May, and as various media outlets reitereated throughout STS-135’s launch coverage. The list of things SpaceX cannot do as it slips schedules grows longer with each passing day. But then, trips to Mars, per Master Musk, are only 20 years away, arent they. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

    @Michael from Iowa wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 11:53 am
    “One can only hope that SOME good comes out of all this. Pushing for a hybrid public/private space program might be our only chance to continue manned spaceflight in the next decade.” That;s not particularly encouraging. Reagan push for this privatization mix with quite literally disasterous results. The conservative mindset is to run the space agency like the postal service.

  • Das Boese

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    What the US might be going threw is a functional breakdown of its political system as practiced by the two parties. It is to early to tell for sure, but the hints are there that we are approaching a 1860 or 1929 type political reshape…ie the two parties if they emerge at all will be quite different or in Europe a 1914 time where the total politcial system(s) failed.

    I don’t really think I want this sort of thing to happen in the world’s largest economy and second largest nuclear power.

    Though I’m not sure why you’d think Europe 1914 is relevant.

  • amightywind

    Only on spacepolitics is no news news. Shock, the current NASA leadership fiddles while Rome burns. Meanwhile prominent members are speaking out against the horror show that is the death of NASA.

    Story Musgrave is incensed.
    Chris Kraft is mortified.

    Mike Leinbach is depressed.

    These are people who matter.

  • Martijn Meijering

    No, these are people who used to matter.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
    “…it is unlikely that ISS will be deorbited in 2020…” ROFLMAO and yet 18 months ago NASA management was planning on a mid-decade splash.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Orion was designed to have in-space crewed operations for 4 people a total of 16 days.

    Actually 21.1 days IIRC.

    SpaceX can’t do that.

    And they are not being paid to do that, so it’s kind of funny that you are comparing them to the Lockheed Martin Orion/MPCV, which has spent well over $4B and hasn’t launched yet. At least Dragon has had it’s first successful test launch as part of the COTS program, and they should be flying CRS missions next year.

    If NASA were to ask them to bid on a MPCV replacement, I don’t doubt they could do it for far less than what LM has spent so far, or even less than the $Billions LM says they still need.

    I worked Ares 1 and supported Orion.

    It must have been really frustrating to keep having to change the Ares I design.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ares_I_Evolution.jpg

    And I bet the Orion folks would rather have been placed on a Delta IV Heavy instead of the Ares I. At least they could have been flying by now, since they wouldn’t have had to keep redesigning the capsule every time the Ares I design changed.

    People who worked for me did Ares V.

    I wonder what you think about the SLS, and the Senates opinion that it can be built for less than the Ares I, carry far more, and be built in about the same timeframe. Are they crazy?

    I know about what I speak. We had a very good plan in place.

    Anonymous posters that claim Constellation had a good plan are not likely to earn any street cred here. Maybe your portion of the program had a good plan in place, but overall the program was poorly managed, so you’ll earn more respect by what you say than by what you said you did.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    ROFLMAO and yet 18 months ago NASA management was planning on a mid-decade splash.

    Yes, and 18 months ago Constellation was the Program of Record. Things change.

    No wonder most of what you say doesn’t make sense – you’re reading 18 month old newspapers for all your news…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Blaming Mike Griffin for Obama’s failure is just a little bit silly. Constellation had its problems, but they were fixable with just a little tweeking. Instead Obama destroyed human space exploration and started a dubious high speed railroad style program to pump government subsidies into commercial space. It is proceeding pretty much as predicted.

  • Das Boese

    DCSCA wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
    “…it is unlikely that ISS will be deorbited in 2020…” ROFLMAO and yet 18 months ago NASA management was planning on a mid-decade splash.

    Oh yeah, they were planning, really really hard. So hard that apparently nobody ever bothered to think about what would happen to the non-US modules. Or how they were going to deorbit the USOS which has no propulsion capability of its own, after the Russians confirmed that they have no intention of abandoning their segment.

  • DCSCA

    Das Boese wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
    That turkey was bound for Fishland until Constellation was cancelled. Such is the mindset of an aging bureaucracy.

  • DCSCA

    @Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    “Blaming Mike Griffin for Obama’s failure is just a little bit silly.”

    Not really. Griffin’s Ares was a lousy rocket design to build a 30 year program around. But if you’re looking for failures of leadership, look to Dubya and his pappy. Both proposed grandiose space projects in their respective terms of office yet failed to garner support in Congress to fully fund them. Like father, like son.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    “Constellation had its problems, but they were fixable with just a little tweeking.”

    That’s not the conclusion the Augustine Committee came to. In fact, that’s not the conclusion that just about anyone came to. I guess you’re calling adding $2.5B/yr to the NASA budget a little tweak. I don’t, and Congress doesn’t either. We could sure use a little tweak like that right now. Maybe two!

    The failure of Constellation was, in that respect, mostly by Congress and the then-administration for not ponying up the funds that were needed. Mike Griffin’s failure was to the spirit of VSE which was, when it was released, and to the credit of the administration that released it, a refreshing and novel perspective on space exploration.

  • Constellation had its problems, but they were fixable with just a little tweeking.

    That is an utter fantasy that could only be entertained by someone completely unfamiliar with the state of the program. And the word is “tweaking.”

  • SLS/MPCV won’t fly human until 2020? bwahahaha. I especially liked when Rep Harris got his turn to speak and pointed out that 2020 is *waaay* too far to the right for MPCV to serve as a “backup to commercial crew”. It was like he had just worked that out.

  • Das Boese

    DCSCA wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    That turkey was bound for Fishland until Constellation was cancelled.

    And I feel like I’m talking to a can of tuna.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    That turkey was bound for Fishland until Constellation was cancelled. Such is the mindset of an aging bureaucracy.

    Such is the mindset of your aging mind. Why do you keep babbling incorrect things?

    Everyone knows that originally the budget required the ISS to be defunded after 2015 so that Constellation could get additional funds.

    However, as many people have pointed out to you, there were no defined or funded plans to disassemble and de-orbit the ISS. Because of that the ISS could have been given to our partners, or even sold to other “interested countries”, which would have cost far less than us spending time separating our portions of the ISS from our partners.

    With Constellation killed by Congress, Congress has designated the ISS as a National Laboratory, has stated it’s intention to fund it through at least 2020, and has asked NASA to determine what it would take to extend it’s life even further.

    “Fishland” is not even a consideration, except for those that have feeble minds…

  • Vladislaw

    Mark R. Whittington wrote:

    “Constellation had its problems, but they were fixable with just a little tweeking.”

    As Major Tom has endless posted the actual numbers for Constellation, it was not under funded.

    If Dr. Griffin had actually stood strong, instead of caving, COTS-D would have been funded. A smaller, three person capsule, for launch on existing rockets, would be launching if not already, in the next year or so. An EDS, that launched empty on a Delta IV heavy, could have been close by now for launching. A simple, orbital fuel depot, as proposed in the ACES doc, would have been launching in the next year or so. If the smart choices would have been made with the 12-15 billion dollars we would be within a lunar orbital test launch by 2014-16.

    The point of the story is, why build a system that was going to be plagued with high costs, development problems and schedule delays and the need for constant “tweeking” in the first place.

    When the hell is NASA going to learn and actually exercise the kiss principle. keep it simple stupid. Now they are going to be forced into finally accepting … ‘good enough’, lets go.

  • amightywind

    Griffin’s Ares was a lousy rocket design to build a 30 year program around.

    Yeah, lousy enough to base the follow on program on it two and a half years later. Bolden is just afraid to build a 10m tank. I have a feeling that Griffin or someone like him may soon be back. The bloody corpse of NASA is on Obama’s door, not 41 or 43’s, that’s the fact. W set in place a robust program. Not his fault that it was starved by Pelosi.

    That’s not the conclusion the Augustine Committee came to.

    A partisan committee whose conclusions were refuted by the public and congress almost immediately.

  • Egad

    > And I bet the Orion folks would rather have been placed on a Delta IV Heavy instead of the Ares I.

    Not to wander off topic (does that ever happen?), but is there a discussion of what, if anything, moving from the RS-68 to RS-68A (and RS-68B?) is going to mean for D4H and the potential to use it for launching Orion?

  • Alan

    I worked Ares 1 and supported Orion. People who worked for me did Ares V. I know about what I speak. We had a very good plan in place.

    So pray tell why were the entry and exit criteria for the ARES I PDR highly-modified in order to let the review close while still having significant technical risk and open items?

  • tom

    Interesting retorts. Thank you gentlemen (?). CxP was a good plan. Execution was flawed in some areas. But the plan sound. One thing CxP had was the support of congress and the president. Look at the situation now. A big part of Ares I was letting NASA mgt learn how to build a rocket. That experience had rightly moved out into industry over the last 30 years. The NSA, NRO, USAF and a lot of others wanted Ares V. So, yes SLS is a good idea. We need a rocket of that class. It will change how we fly national security payloads, launch commercial satellites, place large science missions in orbit and build ships that can take us to Mars and other places in the solar system. Orion will fly in 2013 on an EELV and if that goes well, crewed about 6-9 months later. In the words of H any EELV rocket with sufficient reliability to carry a $3,000,000,000 NRO spacecraft can carry a crew, Starting in 2015 this will 100% compete with commercial crew. Two launches a year will eat a vast amount of the money away from the commercial crew providers. From what I’m getting the idea from Lori is to slow role SLS until 2013 in order to give commercial options a chance to get going. Congress will not forgive.

    Cheers!

  • tom

    One more point on subsidies for commercial providers. Yes, NASA paid for most of the commercial launch vehicle and spacecraft development (as it should). Yes, NASA will buy rides if needed and yes the business case does not exist to make commercial crew profitable in the next 8 years. So yes, about $1,000,000,000 a year in subsidies starting about 2013 to pay for commercial crew/cargo operations. That’s the hidden cost no one talks about.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    “Constellation had its problems, but they were fixable with just a little tweeking.”

    ok what “tweeking” would have fixed a program that consumed twice more then Gemini the entire program did…and produced nothing flight worthy? Gee RGO

  • DCSCA

    @Das Boese wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
    Nonsense- we all know wheels of cheese are NewSpace faire.

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
    “Such is the mindset of your aging mind. Why do you keep babbling incorrect things?” Yes, why do you: “Coastal Ron wrote @ July 5th, 2011 at 4:34 pm SpaceX has flown a Dragon test flight that someone could have flown on, and the passenger(s) would have returned safely.” ROFLMAOPIP

    amightywind wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    Dubya and Pappy

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    Dubya and Pappy carry a great deal of the blame. They both initiated a proposal and failed to follow through and secure adequate funding. Like father, like son.

  • DCSCA

    “Constellation had its problems, but they were fixable with just a little tweeking.”

    ??? Several billion borrowed dollars worth of tweaking/year ain’t a little. Constellation’s problem was Ares. If they’d invested monies into ‘block 1/block 2- styled’ Orions up front and got the series up and flying on existing LVs, it might have been saved. Ares was the weak link- the flaw. Griffin fancied himself another Von Braun; another architect for a grand rebirth of a lunar space program. He is, in fact, a legend in his own mind. Watching Griffin and Garver spar is like watching a Laurel & Hardy two-reeler. Best for the industry to move on from them. The sooner, the better.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron: Of course, now they are trying to justify the ISS and create rationale for it– like a destination for faux NewSpace projects. But ss of July 13, 2009, jusr 24 MONTHS AGO this was the thinking and planning at NASA:

    “In the first quarter of 2016, we’ll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft,” says NASA’s space station program manager, Michael T. Suffredini.

    That’s a polite way of saying that NASA will make the space station fall back into the atmosphere, where it will turn into a fireball and then crash into the Pacific Ocean. It’ll be a controlled reentry, to ensure that it doesn’t take out a major city. But it’ll be destroyed as surely as a Lego palace obliterated by the sweeping arm of a suddenly bored kid.

    This, at least, [WAS] NASA’s plan, pending a change in policy. There’s no long-term funding on the books for international space station operations beyond 2015.

    Suffredini raised some eyebrows when, at a public hearing last month, he declared flatly that the plan is to de-orbit the station in 2016. He addressed his comments to a panel chaired by former aerospace executive Norman Augustine that is charged by the Obama administration with reviewing the entire human spaceflight program.”- source, washingtonpost.com. tick-tock, tick-tock, fella. You really outta just get someone up around and down safely– especially before Iran launches a monkey or two.

  • Florida Today reports on yesterday’s hearing.

    I’ve watched so far the first half of that hearing. Rep. Hall and most of those porkers are in Fantasyland. They spin all sorts of fantastic tales that have no basis in reality. It was like watching the Mad Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland.

    The only sane one was Dana Rohrabacher, and having lived next to Dana’s district for most of his political career I gotta say that’s a very low definition of “sane.”

  • amightywind

    Florida Today reports on yesterday’s hearing.

    Thanks for the link.

    Bolden called decisions about the rocket the most important he is likely to make.

    I disagree. Whatever decision he makes will likely be revisited in 18 months or overturned by congress much sooner.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 1:28 am

    Do you have a learning disability?

    Suffredini made that statement before the Augustine Committee stating the law at the time, but then he also said this:

    “My opinion is it would be a travesty to de-orbit this thing,” he said. “If we get rid of this darned thing in 2015, we’re going to cede our leadership in human exploration.”

    Not long after that, Congress killed Constellation and kept the ISS. There are no plans to de-orbit the ISS.

    Go read your dusty Apollo manuals and leave real thinking to others…

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    One more point on subsidies for commercial providers. Yes, NASA paid for most of the commercial launch vehicle and spacecraft development (as it should).

    I think you’re mixing up a lot of programs and generalizing them, and the word “subsidy” does not apply here (go look up the definition).

    For instance, if you think $278M in the COTS program is enough to develop a med-heavy launcher and a cargo capsule with 6mt upmass capability and 3mt downmass, then you’re not familiar with how much things cost. SpaceX has spent over $800M of their own money to develop Falcon 9 and Dragon, and they had started both before the COTS program came along.

    For CCDev, so far NASA requires the winners to co-invest on the program, and NASA is mainly interested in the crew carry vehicle, not the launcher. The launchers being considered already exist, and all they need are upgrades for crew safety systems.

    Now look at the problem from the flip side. If NASA did not have the COTS or CCDev programs, then no commercial companies would be risking the hundreds of $Million needed to build systems that NASA would approve.

    Why? Because NASA isn’t the FAA, and doesn’t have a fully defined set of requirements for what it needs, so it must work with the commercial aerospace industry to develop what’s needed together.

    And what happens if they don’t? Well then we will always rely on the Russians to get our crew to space, and we’ll have to rely on our other ISS partners to keep the ISS supplied.

    If you’re happy with that, then fine, but most of us want an American transportation system to LEO, and since NASA is the customer that needs the service, it’s up to them to co-invest with the industry. That’s called a public-private partnership, where both take risks, and both share in the rewards. No subsidies.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    A big part of Ares I was letting NASA mgt learn how to build a rocket.

    No, Griffin said Ares I was “Safe, Simple, Soon”. The website is even still up if you need to reacquaint yourself.

    What we got was this family tree for a rocket that never launched:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ares_I_Evolution.jpg

    Griffin was guessing when he chose the Ares I design, and because of that the program went way over budget and behind schedule. How can you call that a sound plan?

    How do you explain why it got in such a bad situation?

  • Doug Lassiter

    amightywind wrote @ July 12th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    “A partisan committee whose conclusions were refuted by the public and congress almost immediately.”

    Re Augustine Committee, the refutation of their report by Congress was, you’re saying, manifested in congressional elimination of Constellation from both Auth and Approps legislation? If that’s how they refute the Augustine Committee conclusions, then they’re dimmer than I thought.

    The partisanship of the Augustine Committee is something that has no independent validation. If a bunch of smart and savvy folks conclude that the plans that happen to have been started by a Republican administration aren’t executable, then that makes them partisan, I guess? In fact, the Augustine Commission was complementary about VSE, which came from that same administration.

    The alleged refutation by “the public” doesn’t count for squat.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Interesting retorts. Thank you gentlemen (?). CxP was a good plan. Execution was flawed in some areas. But the plan sound. One thing CxP had was the support of congress and the president.”

    Political support is not enough to make up for financial, technical, and schedule problems. Cxp under estimated what it would take to execute the program. Lacked resources to handle technical programs and stretched the schedule into insanity (Orion ready after ISS splash? HLV ready years after ISS splash? The shuttle could function as a pseudo space station without a space station; Orion LEO missions without a space station make no sense).

    “Look at the situation now. A big part of Ares I was letting NASA mgt learn how to build a rocket. That experience had rightly moved out into industry over the last 30 years.”

    That learning was a waste of time and funds. They simply needed to purchase commercially available rockets to do the task.

    “The NSA, NRO, USAF and a lot of others wanted Ares V. So, yes SLS is a good idea. We need a rocket of that class. It will change how we fly national security payloads, launch commercial satellites, place large science missions in orbit and build ships that can take us to Mars and other places in the solar system.”

    NSA,NRO, and USAF have bigger budgets than NASA. They might fly a payload on SLS, but they sure don’t seem to want the capability bad enough that they want to pay for themselves? SLS can’t launch commercial satellites unless there are no alternatives (and given the number of commercial satellites launched by Delta Heavy not many plus with Flacon Heavy the payload had better be greater than 50MT). Large science missions only if they can afford to scrape up the money for the rocket. Size makes some things a lot more expensive.

    “ Orion will fly in 2013 on an EELV and if that goes well, crewed about 6-9 months later. In the words of H any EELV rocket with sufficient reliability to carry a $3,000,000,000 NRO spacecraft can carry a crew, Starting in 2015 this will 100% compete with commercial crew. Two launches a year will eat a vast amount of the money away from the commercial crew providers. From what I’m getting the idea from Lori is to slow role SLS until 2013 in order to give commercial options a chance to get going. Congress will not forgive.”

    Not really. Orion will fly unmanned in 2013(maybe….cause budget problems are making this less likely). However SLS won’t be ready till late 2017(and more likely later than that). Commercial crew is aiming to be ready by 2016 at the latest. Space X wants to fly about 2014 manned as well as SNC. Boeing wants to fly manned in 2015. They will be ready long before SLS and launching two flights a year to LEO using an HLV is a waste of money.

  • tom

    have any of you met Mike Griffin? Had the opp to talk with him and ask lots of good questions. I have had the honor several times. The last about 5 weeks ago @ dinner. He can and does explain how CxP was formed, the decision on why something’s did not get approved and others did. He never guessed. His thinking was logical and his arguments sound. Maybe not the only way to go, but sound. He told me he would go back to NASA if he was given the same card as last time. I only hope he gets that call in 2013.

  • amightywind

    If a bunch of smart and savvy folks conclude that the plans that happen to have been started by a Republican administration aren’t executable, then that makes them partisan, I guess?

    What made the commission partisan was that it was appointed exclusively by democrats for the purpose of a political hatchet job. That’s why its decisions won’t last a transition of power. You can’t say that about the Rogers Commission or the CAIB.

  • Byeman

    “The NSA, NRO, USAF and a lot of others wanted Ares V.”

    That is complete baloney. There is not one bit of truth in that statement. Proof that the poster does not know what he is talking about: is that the NSA has nothing to do with launch vehicles and spacecraft. They only provide requirements to other agencies.

  • Byeman

    “We need a rocket of that class.”

    Another fallacy. DOD and commercial have no need for Ares V class vehicles.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    have any of you met Mike Griffin? Had the opp to talk with him and ask lots of good questions.

    I have no doubt that Michael Griffin is a very smart guy, and would be a fascinating person to talk to.

    But the bottom line here is responsibility. Griffin was instrumental in designing and choosing the Constellation architecture, and he was the one that was responsible for selling it to Congress and running the program as the NASA Administrator. Heck, even if he was only the NASA Administrator he still would have been responsible for the good or bad of Constellation, but he was intimately involved at all levels.

    So I think Griffin needs to man-up and take responsibility for why Constellation was so far over-budget and behind schedule.

    And while he’s at it, he should also own up to the mess the JWST is in, since the majority of that happened on his watch too.

    I only hope he gets that call in 2013.

    Congress cancelled Constellation because it was a fiscal nightmare, and they are threatening to cancel JWST because of the same thing. Both got into trouble during Griffin’s watch, and neither were addressed by Griffin.

    Why would anyone want that kind of management back at NASA?

    It’s not effort that matters, only results. He had very little.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 10:21 am
    Funny how your posted quote has no source. And, of course, the point is, Suffredini, NASA management et al testimony reveals they were planning to deep six PDQ, it until Constellation, which already had years of investment in it, was cancelled a little over a year ago. And, of course, NASA does have a plan for de-orbiting the ISS on the shelf– they were ready to use it by 2015. Now NASA is scrambling for a rationale to keep funding the $100 billion boondoggle even as the U.S. faces default. A boondoggle necessary for desperate NewSpace firms seeking government subsidies as they’re denied capital investment from the private sector. Personal attacks only reveal the weakness in your own position. Oh, BTW, tick-tock, tick-tock. The schedules keep slipping.

  • Vladislaw

    tom wrote:

    “have any of you met Mike Griffin? Had the opp to talk with him and ask lots of good questions. I have had the honor several times. The last about 5 weeks ago @ dinner. He can and does explain how CxP was formed, the decision on why something’s did not get approved and others did.”

    If I remember correctly there was a lot of stuff happening when the ESAS, the “sound plan”, was formed. There was discontent among many and when the ESAS was released some of the data and appendixes were not released and, I believe it was NASAspaceFlight that released the data. From statements I have seen Ares 1 and 5 were basicially prepicked and EELV’s were cut out of the equation.

    Does anyone remember some of the specifics for how and when ESAS was released and how it was initially received?

  • VirgilSamms

    “DOD and commercial have no need for Ares V class vehicles”

    Really? I think you are quite the most arrogant creature I have ever had the misfortune of corresponding with Byeman.

    The larger the payload the greater the capability. You can throw all the techno-dollars per pound-infomercial babble you want into a reply but the truth is easy to see by anyone not brainwashed by the new space hype.

    We went to the moon with a HLV with hydrogen upper stages and a hydrogen earth departure stage. We also put up a dry workshop that could just have easily been the God Almighty of all Intelligence payloads.
    Your statement that a HLV is not needed is ridiculous.

    Completely ridiculous. DOD will gladly fly bigger and better satellites on the SLS.

  • DOD will gladly fly bigger and better satellites on the SLS.

    DOD doesn’t have the budget for the size of satellites that would fly on SLS, nor does it have the budget for the cost of SLS flights. In fact, no government agency does, which is why SLS is doomed to die, just as Ares did.

  • Doug Lassiter

    amightywind wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
    “What made the commission partisan was that it was appointed exclusively by democrats for the purpose of a political hatchet job. That’s why its decisions won’t last a transition of power. You can’t say that about the Rogers Commission or the CAIB.”

    OK, let’s assume the Augustine Committee was appointed to do a hatchet job. Constellation sure made that an easy task, didn’t it?

    Comparison between the Augustine Commission and the Rogers Commission or CAIB is screwy. The CAIB and Rodgers Commission were chartered to (as per the CAIB charter) “determine the facts, as well as the actual or probable causes of the Shuttle mishap in terms of dominant and contributing root causes and significant observations and, recommend preventive and other appropriate actions to preclude recurrence of a similar mishap.” That had nothing to do with taxpayer investment strategy and was pretty independent of transition of power. The Augustine Committee was, on the other hand, asked to “conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight – one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable”. That’s quite different. I guess if the Augustine Committee had been chartered to fix a broken Constellation, the comparison might have been reasonable.

    Yes, a Republican administration might well convene another committee to do an identical study that would replace the Augustine report, and advise a new investment strategy. They’ll be smart and savvy people, I’m sure, but of course one will not hesitate to call them partisan, and out to do a hatchet job too. Right?

  • pathfinder_01

    “The larger the payload the greater the capability. You can throw all the techno-dollars per pound-infomercial babble you want into a reply but the truth is easy to see by anyone not brainwashed by the new space hype. ”

    Reminds me of the trick we used to do with small children at christmas time. Wrap a large box with a small item…..the child assumes that the larger box is better!

    Larger does not mean more capability. Capability might drive size but not the other way around. Skylab for instance was larger than Saylut 1, but most the volume was just empty space! Skylab lacked engines for reboost(a critical need for a space station).

    What drives the size of the mission is the amount of propellant. The Apollo capsule plus the lunar lander together mass less than the Space Shutle.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Funny how your posted quote has no source.

    Since it was taken from the same article you were quoting, all you had to do was read the rest of the article. But that’s OK, here is one of many articles that quoted him:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201977.html

    NASA management et al testimony reveals

    Everyone knew this information back when the Constellation budget was revealed, so why are you so behind the times? It was in the Appropriation law that authorized the Constellation program.

    NASA does have a plan for de-orbiting the ISS on the shelf– they were ready to use it by 2015.

    Prove it. I bet you can’t.

    Now NASA is scrambling for a rationale to keep funding the $100 billion boondoggle even as the U.S. faces default.

    Uh, no. Talk to Congress. They are the ones that hold the purse strings for NASA’s budget, and they are the ones that like the ISS. They like it so much they designated it as a National Laboratory, and have asked NASA to see what it will take to extend it’s life past 2020.

    As usual, you don’t know the right people to blame.

    A boondoggle necessary for desperate NewSpace firms seeking government subsidies…blah, blah, blah

    Yes, we all know that Boeing, Orbital Sciences Corp. and Sierra Nevada Corp. are all such newbies to space hardware. yawn.

    Of course your theory that “NewSpace” is driving the need for cargo and crew capabilities for the ISS is debunked by just reading the FY2006 NASA Budget, where it states:

    A key element of the ISS program is the crew and cargo services project, which will purchase services for cargo and crew transport using existing and emerging capabilities.

    Bush/Griffin were planning “NewSpace” participation way before Obama/Bolden, and way before the ISS was extended.

    Maybe you should stick to playing with your Saturn V models…

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Really? I think you are quite the most arrogant creature I have ever had the misfortune of corresponding with Byeman.

    Gee, and I thought I had that honor.

    Byeman! (said in a Seinfeld way) ;-)

    But seriously Gary/Virgil, it’s easy enough to refute assertions, all you have to do is produce facts. In this case you stated that “The NSA, NRO, USAF and a lot of others wanted Ares V.” and many of us say you are making that up, that you are wrong.

    Can you point to any evidence that what you assert is true?

  • Vladislaw

    “We went to the moon with a HLV with hydrogen upper stages and a hydrogen earth departure stage.”

    We went to the western frontier on horseback and wagons, guess we should still be using them …. because … you know . that’s how we did it in the past.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
    Desperation. No ISS, no NewSpace.

  • GaryChurch

    First of all I did NOT say anything about AresV.

    Freudian slip? No, irritation.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    No ISS, no NewSpace.

    LOL. The ISS may represent a portion of “NewSpace” business (whatever that is), but not enough to put anyone out of business. But since Congress likes the ISS, things will continue along like you don’t even exist… ;-)

    Go back to your 40-year old Apollo models and leave the future to others.

  • Doug Lassiter

    VirgilSamms wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
    “DOD will gladly fly bigger and better satellites on the SLS.”

    I’ll agree with the response to this above and add to it that the DOD is not interested in larger satellites. Satellite size is really only relevant for surveillance optical systems, and the sizes they have now suffice. In fact, the DOD is well aware that satellites are easy targets for destruction and or inspection, and putting a lot of eggs in one basket is not a smart military posture. You don’t see them announced much, but the small sats that the DOD lofts, on modest sized launchers, is where a lot of the activity is.

    Commercial might have some need for the SLS, but the commercial launch providers, unlike the Senate, are smart enough to build to where they see the market. They aren’t building them, nor even proposing them.

  • ok then

    The SLS details must be released now why exactly? Are the Russians closing the power point gap? They have CAD stations in Cuba?

    So much panic over some bean counting. CGI doesn’t make it real if the budgets don’t show up.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
    No ISS, no NewSpace. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    No ISS, no NewSpace.

    Well it’s an academic argument on your part anyways, since the ISS will continue to pass over your head (like most things) through at least 2020. In case you’re having trouble doing the math, that’s more than 8 years from now.

    And given the Coastal Ron axiom that “a funded program that has achieved operational status tends to stay funded“, it is more than likely it will be funded well beyond that.

    Isn’t it funny how the things you argue against tend to go along and succeed without ever noticing you have doomed them? ;-)

  • vulture4

    NASA needs to save money. SLS and Orion are a huge drain on the budget and produce nothing except pork. The NASA leadership is right to try to jettison them. Congress is wrong to force them down NASA’s throat.

  • vulture4

    “In a later news briefing, she disagreed with criticism that the agency was dragging its heels on the SLS decision”

    Well, of course she’s dragging her heels, and I have one thing to say about it: You go girl! Because it’s the right thing to do. With that much money NASA could, and should, do something of practical value.

Leave a Reply to DCSCA 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>