Congress, NASA

The SLS debate continues

Tuesday’s House Science Committee hearing about NASA’s Space Launch System was, to some degree, predictable. Members of the committee expressed the concern, if not outright frustration, about the lack of a decision or other information from NASA about its SLS plans. NASA administrator Charles Bolden, the committee’s sole witness, reiterated that NASA was making progress on this but needed to make sure that the design it selected would be affordable and sustainable (two oft-repeated terms) over the long term.

“Indications that we had received from NASA throughout the spring clearly suggested that a decision would have been rendered prior to today. Sadly, such is not the case,” committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) said in his opening statement. “General Bolden, the fact that we do not have a final decision on the SLS, and the supporting documents that the invitation letter requests, represents almost an insult to this committee and the Congress.” Hall added later that his committee reserves the right to open an investigation into the delays.

Bolden, in his testimony, offered a few new items about the state of the SLS decisionmaking effort. Although deputy administrator Lori Garver said last week that she anticipated a final decision by the end of thus summer, Bolden suggested that it could take even longer. He said that on June 20 he approved a specific technical design for the SLS, but did not disclose exactly what that design is. “That was an important step but not a final decision,” Bolden said. Cost estimates, including an independent assessment by Booz Allen Hamilton, are currently in progress. “It would be irresponsible to proceed further until at least we have good estimates,” he said. “This will likely be the most important decision I make as NASA administrator, and I want to get it right.” While hoping to make that decision by the end of the summer, “the absolute need to make sure our SLS program fits within our overall budget constraints suggests it may take longer.”

Bolden also, for the first time publicly, indicated that some elements of the SLS design would be open to competition. Existing solid rocket boosters would initially be used for the SLS “until we can hold a competition, which I’ve directed we try to do as soon as possible, where all comers can compete,” including, specifically, liquid oxygen (LOX)/RP-1 systems. “It’s going to be full and open competition, if I can do what I would like to do.”

However, Bolden also indicated that the SLS might not be ready to carry people for perhaps a decade. An uncrewed test flight is planned for 2017, he said, which could be used for a high-speed reentry test of the Orion capsule. “We’re still talking late this decade, early ’20s before we have a human-rated vehicle,” he said. That, a member of the committee later noted, makes it unlikely the MPCV would be able to serve as the backup for commercial providers for accessing the ISS unless the station’s life is extended beyond 2020.

One member of the committee openly questioned whether NASA should be spending money on the SLS and MPCV. “Are we not spending money that should be going to some of those other goals in space,” such as robotic exploration and even space debris cleanup, suggested Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). “If we spend all of our money on a huge vehicle that may or may not be absolutely necessary, the money won’t be there for what is the modern version of the Hubble telescope.”

Bolden disagreed. “If I don’t build a heavy-lift launch vehicle, we don’t have an exploration program.” “No, you don’t have a human exploration program,” countered Rohrabacher. “I’m a big fan of human exploration,” Bolden replied. Rohrabacher warned that by spending money on long-term human space exploration at the expense of those other goals, be it space telescopes or space debris cleanup, “we are then chasing after goals that are so far in the distance that we are cutting out the things that we can do today.”

The SLS debate shows no sign of dying down. Yesterday three members of the Senate, John Boozman (R-AR), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Bill Nelson (D-FL), held a press conference on relatively short notice to discuss their concerns about the lack of progress on the SLS design. They are asking NASA and the White House to release that technical design on the SLS now, even while the cost studies continue. “Senator Nelson and I are urging that the OMB let the decision be made public so the contractors at NASA will stay in place – that will be the most efficient way for the taxpayers of our country,” Hutchison said in a statement Thursday. “We also want to know why they are delaying so much when they’ve already massaged the numbers once in NASA, actually two or three times.”

Hutchison added in the statement that she and Nelson have seen that unreleased technical design for the SLS and “we know that it is a great design,” she said. “NASA is going to be the final arbiter of what this design is, it’s not OMB. So let’s move out, let’s get going, and let’s do the best for our taxpayers by holding on to the experienced people that we have.”

213 comments to The SLS debate continues

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    It’s unlikely, but I would laugh my head off if the independent cost analysis returned that all of NASA’s current cost and schedule estimates for SLS were inflated by a factor of at least 50% for no obvious reason. This leading to the key conclusion: “Obviously, someone over there doesn’t want to do this.”

    Seriously, it is beginning to become very obvious that NASA cannot do this – either for engineering, budgetary or even, possibly, confidential political reasons. With this in mind, I really think that the agency should be focussing more on how to save its budget and political support in a post-shuttle era, something that will not be easy.

  • amightywind

    Hutchison added in the statement that she and Nelson have seen that unreleased technical design for the SLS and “we know that it is a great design,” she said.

    From what I see at Aviation Week the SLS is a Ares V with an 8.4m instead of a 10m core diameter. It uses SSMEs, J2-X’s, and, of course, ATK SRBs. So what’s the hold up. If shuttle contractors are to be retained the program must start now. This rocket is too large just to launch Orion. So one wonders how that will get to space?

  • NASA Fan

    Bolden: “wont be human rated for another decade”

    What’s the point. Geez. NASA’s budget will be significantly less in a decade than it is now, ,,,with no funds for an actual mission.

    I can envision a Sand chart where the SLS/MPCV ‘s first mission is dependent on the termination of ISS, freeing up funds for a first mission.

    NASA is broken,,,,and like a horse or dog that’s too ill to continue on,,perhaps it’s time to end NASA HSF.

  • Mark Whittington

    An interesting takeaway from this is that Rohrabacher has suddenly turned against space exploration. This is a bad political move on his part, IMHO, that puts him at odds with the rest of the GOP caucus.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 9:05 am

    “An interesting takeaway from this is that Rohrabacher has suddenly turned against space exploration”

    nope, what it shows is how far out there people like you are…you define space exploration as a big government program that continues the legacy of Cx, ie spending money and never flying.

    Dana knows what exploration looks like, you just dont anymore RGO

  • Mark Whittington

    Oler, if Dana knows what exploration looks like, I hope he will one day let the rest of us know. The problem with people who attack programs like Constellation is that they don’t have any better idea. Except, of course, not to explore space at all. But maybe that is the real idea. Just don’t do it.

  • “If I don’t build a heavy-lift launch vehicle, we don’t have an exploration program.”

    Does Bolden really believe this foolishness, or was he just pandering to Congress. Dana should have challenged this, and not have let him off the hook.

  • Mark Whittington

    Rand, I think Dana agrees. He just doesn’t think we need to do space exploration for the foreseeable future.

  • He just doesn’t think we need to do space exploration for the foreseeable future.

    You have no clue whatsoever what Dana thinks. But if all we’re going to do is “exploration” (that is send humans or robots off occasionally to look at a planet), I don’t think we need to do that either. We need to develop and settle space, not “explore” it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 10:25 am
    “. The problem with people who attack programs like Constellation is that they don’t have any better idea”

    goofy on three levels.

    The first is that people who support programs like Constellation have no really good ideas. You are typical. You cannot name a single path by which the US ever recoups the investment in any value that Cx will require in cost. So far we have spent 15 billion, three times what GEMINI took to run the entire program…and to get to where Cx did anything in terms of exploration was going to take tens of billions maybe a hundred or so billion more…and then what do we get?

    In your word we race the Chinese to the Moon, we stop them from taking over the Moon, we trumpted “American exceptionalism” whatever goofy thing that means to the chest thumpers today.

    All you are doing is supporting a government program THAT YOU LIKE without any realization that it is just like the government programs you dont like…except it doesnt help anyone other then the people who get a check from it.

    Second, those of us who do not support Cx have a plan..It is much like how the US West was won, or aviation made an American century or any other commodity/place was embraced by American society, it is to involve Free Enterprise.

    You have never answered why you refer to issues like SpaceX as “crony capitalism” but yet turn a “blind eye to the glass” to the many more billions spent in “traditional” government contracting roles.

    You use to see Free Enterprise in exactly how Obama is integrating it in the human spaceflight program as ESSENTIAL…you signed onto a Standard Piece that was in its lengths and breadth describing Obama’s program almost a decade before it started.

    What changed? Do you so hate Obama, or have you gone so far overboard with the extremist of the GOP goofy people who say “defaulting doesnt matter” or those who think the American REvolution started in New Hampshire or Black families had it better UNDER SLAVERY?

    Third all you can argue for is “people in exploration” for the sake of people. We are doing exploration..Messenger is learning about Mercury, Cassini about Saturn, the list goes on.

    Until the cost can come down on exploration (and that is where Free Enterprise is essential) then humans probably have little or no role in Apollo style exploration.

    I am sure you have been correct about a few things over the last 10 years, but from goofy notions that we can take Iraq with 50,000 people to Sarah Palin’s run for the PResidency to well Bush and his “lunar vision” all you seem able to do is parrot the right wing line of the GOP which grows more nuts every day.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Dennis Berube

    First Bolden should go! What has he done with regards to furthering space efforts? If he realizes that SLS is to far into the future, or to expensive, have to guts to tell Congress that hey we will use a Delta Heavy, and or Atlas, to launch Orion. What is the problem? If Falcon heavy proves itself,switchto it, if Musk can keep cost down further. This bantering is just holding everything up. With hopes that Orion will have a test launch in 2013, aboard a Delta, this should promote that idea. Maybe too, by then Musk will have the FH ready to go. Paying Russia 52 to 62 million a seat is CRAZY! The soonest possible approach to get American astronauts to space should be followed. If that means utilizing existing rockets, then lets go.

  • Coastal Ron

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Does Bolden really believe this foolishness, or was he just pandering to Congress.

    I’ve wondered that too, and what I’ve come up is this.

    If Bolden said that NASA didn’t need the SLS to do human exploration, that we could do it with existing launchers (like ULA’s “A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture” plan), there would be such a hue and cry from Congress that it would be a huge distraction from anything the Administration is trying to get done with NASA, and could possibly lead to calls for Bolden to step down. He would be branded a heretic instead of just a slow mover.

    This also fits in with the line of questioning that Congress keeps avoiding when they talk with NASA, which is “What kind of HSF could you do if we didn’t build the SLS and you had to use existing launchers?” Congress doesn’t want the best and brightest of our country to develop space exploration plans, Congress is only focused on building a rocket that produces jobs for the next election cycle. Nothing new here.

    If Rohrabacher had asked Bolden if we could mount an asteroid mission using existing launchers, then that would have given Bolden coverage to say that “yes, NASA could do that”. I think that will be the only way that the SLS can be questioned, is by exposing that we could do HSF without it.

    But I don’t think Bolden is trying to rock the boat anymore than he has to.

  • The administration doesn’t want NASA to have a space launch system so they really have no interest in expediting the development of one!

    They’re not serious about any manned voyage to an asteroid or to Mars which is why they set those goals so far into the future.

    They’re part of the wing of the Democratic party that believes that manned spaceflight is a waste of tax payer dollars. Such Democrats hope that private companies will replace NASA’s manned space program, wasting their own private funds, so that former NASA manned spaceflight dollars can be better used for social programs.

    Congress, on the other hand, sees great technological, strategic, and economic value in having a government spaceflight program which is why both Democrats and Republicans continue to pressure the administration on the progress of SLS development.

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark Whittington wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 10:25 am

    The problem with people who attack programs like Constellation is that they don’t have any better idea.

    We don’t lack ideas. We lack the money to do the grand ones like Constellation.

    For 30 years after Apollo there was no grand urge to leave LEO. Republicans and Democrats both were fine with staying local. Oh sure we sent out lots of robotic explorers, and we’ve expanded our views into deep space, but sending humans? Nope.

    The Constellation program will be viewed as a vain attempt at recapturing the glory of Apollo (i.e. Griffins “Apollo on steroids” description), but not a serious attempt to permanently extend our species into space.

    NASA’s budget is not expanding, and it’s likely to shrink. And though on paper that means a larger proportion is devoted to HSF, in reality it still means less money overall. Unless you can fit all of your HSF plans in that tiny budget, you’re not going anywhere fast.

    If you need more money put into space, the only other alternative is from partners, companies and individuals. So NASA can either ignore those other sources, and not partner up with them, or they could partner up with them and extend and enhance NASA’s ability to do things in space with people. I choose the later, which doesn’t have a date specific attached since we don’t know how fast things will move. But I know it will be faster than trying to build a government-funded lunar colony on NASA’s meager budget.

  • Mark Whittington

    Oler, in that long rant, I did not see a plan. Mind, there are some out there that have commercial involvement, like Nautilus-X or the Spudis return to the Moon scheme. Either one or perhaps a combinatoion of both would get my support. But sadly, supporters of the current crony capitalist scheme do not want any space exploration.

  • I’m conducting a poll at the Daily Kos. So if anyone wants to vote for or against the development of the SLS or how it should be used, you can do it at:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/12/994065/-Developing-New-Crew-Launch-Vehicles-for-NASA?via=user

    Over 200 votes so far!

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 9:32 am

    “Dana knows what exploration looks like…”

    In fact, he doesn’t, but he knows it’s color: green.

    “…nope, what it shows is how far out there people like you are…you define space exploration as a big government program…”

    And it will be for decades to come, as both the PRC, Russia continue to demonstrate. You are confused and misguided. Space exploitation is not space exploration. Accordingly, it is you who is ‘far out of it.’

    Rohrabacher is wreckage left over from the Reagan era. A conservative dinosaur representing a philosophy historically opposed to a vibrant, successful, government funded and managed human space exploration program.

    And he keeps poor company indicative of weak judgement as well:

    “With the fundraising help of friend, [fellow Reagan minion and Iran-Contra scoundrel, Oliver North,] Rohrabacher was able to win the Republican primary and capture the seat, centered on northern coastal Orange County. Another pal, fellow White House aide, Christopher Cox, [who failed miserably at his job as Chairman of the SEC, contributing to the recent economic collapse of the United States economy) won a southern Orange County seat in the same election.”

  • I’d still rather have the JWST than this and if Bolden could pull it off…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    pretty good. Bolden has done this song and dance before (and seen it done with military projects) so he knows how it works.

    If Charlie were to come up and say “we dont need SLS” then he is in trouble. That is an outright declaration that would give the other side the ammunition to try and move on independent action.

    As it is, he is studying it” which puts them off, allows the shuttle contractors to go out of business the people to go away and the whole effort to revive a shuttle launch system to get more expensive.

    Then as soon as the “save our jobs’ people like Kay and Bill have no reason to vote for the thing, it enters the final stages of dying.

    I happen to know for a fact that Charlie likes “Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister” and nothing about this is anything not out of Sir Humphries model of how to either kill or keep a government program.

    SLS is dead…only the fans cannot figure it out RGO

  • MrEarl

    I don’t know why Rand and Ron persist in saying that human space EXPLORATION does not need heavy lift when most repitable sources think that it does?
    Sure, we can do a couple of sorties doing the most basic of “flags and foot prints” stuff but REAL exploration will require large ships, bases and fuel depots that will need heavy lift to accomplish.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 11:50 am

    ‘Recoup investment…’ ‘involve Free Enterprise.’

    Space exploitation is not space exploration.

    It is not a profit center and ‘for profit’ styled ‘Reaganomics’ is not going to fuel the expansion of the species out into space. The diasterous privatization policies of the Reagan era should have taught you this by now. “Free enterprise’ has never led the way in this field. It has been governments, in various guises (chiefly for military and geo-political motives) which have led the way in this field. ‘For profit,’ ‘Free enterprise’ has always been a follow along, cashing in where it could. And every time ‘free enterprise’ was presented the opportunity to lead the way in this field, particularly in the West, it has balked and let the government carry the load. Witness Goddard and the meager stipends he struggled to secure from the private sector with the help of Lindbergh and Guggenheim while in the same period, Von Braun’s research flourished, backed by government funding in Germany. The high risk, limited market and largess of capital investement necessary for space projects of scale coupled with weak ROI continue to keep ‘for profit,’ quarterly driven, ‘free enterprise’ frims from taking the lead. That’s why governments do it- and will continue to do it for decades to come, as Russia and the PRC are demonstrating. Maybe you need a more down to earth example of ‘for profit,’ ‘free enterprised’ corporatism, when it comes to your habitual use of the term, ‘Goofy’ – which is tradmarked by Disney Enterprises, Inc., Burbank, CA., TM serial number 77618065. No doubt you’ve made them aware of your regular use of the term and paid the proper licensing fees for the privilege there of. ;-)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    “Oler, in that long rant, I did not see a plan.”

    why is a long range government plan needed? When did you start supporting Soviet style 5 year plans?

    Was there a plan to go from the Wright Flyer to the 787 or even from the WF to the DC-3 or even from the WF to the Ford Trimotor?

    Was there a plan to go from Syncom to Westar?

    There were visions there were intermediate steps that were activated based on the results of what was developed…but there was no central plan.

    The problem with “plans” developed in a free society are numerous. You use to know some of them, but to help I’ll refresh a few of them.

    First at some point the “plan” becomes more important then the goal itself. Ronaldus the Great pushed the space station as “the next logical step”…go read (or better yet listen to) his speeches on the subject and what he had in mind was more then “a few people in cans”…and yet as the plan droned on, doing “the plan” getting a “space station” became more important then what the station actually did…or what value it returns for the cost. This is clearly what happened with the shuttle as well.

    Second, adherence to the plan stifles innovation. We are now on our third or fourth (depending on how you count) attempt to build a heavy launch vehicle out of shuttle hardware…as “wind” Noted they all look the same, there is zero innovation there.

    Third…once the “plan” is done then what? There was support to get a Man on the moon and return him safely…and then fly out the remaining hardware and then well stop. The hardware was to expensive to do anything with…and the “Plan” left no logical reason that was affordable to do anything else.

    why do you think we need “a plan”? RGO

  • I don’t know why Rand and Ron persist in saying that human space EXPLORATION does not need heavy lift when most repitable sources think that it does?

    Because the “repitable sources” [sic] never explain why it is needed, whereas we can point to credible analyses and examples of how to do without. So maybe their “repitation” is unearned.

  • Congress, on the other hand, sees great technological, strategic, and economic value in having a government spaceflight program

    That’s because they’re apparently socialists. We Americans see great technological, strategic and economic value in having a robust American spaceflight industry.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I don’t know why Rand and Ron persist in saying that human space EXPLORATION does not need heavy lift when most repitable sources think that it does?

    It’s not true that most reputable sources say this. What they think is unknowable.

    Sure, we can do a couple of sorties doing the most basic of “flags and foot prints” stuff but REAL exploration will require large ships, bases and fuel depots that will need heavy lift to accomplish.

    This is false, and obviously so to anyone who has at least a superficial understanding of the issues. A rocket-equation level analysis suffices to demonstrate this. All the information is publicly available.

    And depots specifically don’t need heavy lift, in fact they would make it superfluous and probably even useless. Refuelable spacecraft alone would do the trick, but full depots are even more powerful.

    You are simply demonstrating your bias and / or ignorance.

  • ok then

    I lean slightly to heavy lift, because I’m a Mars optimist, but even I can see that we could have a space program with the (heavier) EELVs or Dragon Heavy. And we’d be buildling mission hardware now and launching sooner without spending $10 billion + fixed costs on heavy lift.

    It raises mission complexity for Mars but we aren’t doing Mars any time soon.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
    why is a long range government plan needed? When did you start supporting Soviet style 5 year plans?

    Since when is long range planning by an organization suddenly a ‘soviet style 5 year plan.’ Goofee.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    “Congress, on the other hand, sees great technological, strategic, and economic value in having a government spaceflight program…

    “That’s because they’re apparently socialists. We ultra conservatives see great technological, strategic and economic value in having a robust American spaceflight industry especially when it is subsidized by government funding, there by socializing the risk on the many to benefit a few.”

    There, fixed that for ‘ya.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    I don’t know why Rand and Ron persist in saying that human space EXPLORATION does not need heavy lift when most repitable sources think that it does?

    The way I look at it, so far all we have is opinions that Super-Heavy Launch Vehicles are needed, not facts.

    Can you point to a funded program or payload that requires something bigger than a Delta IV Heavy?

    And for future space endeavors, why can’t we use the same technique we used to build the ISS to build spaceships like Nautilus-X or bigger? Nothing on the ISS won’t fit on existing launchers.

    Fuel depots fit on existing launchers.

    Inflatable habits fit on existing launchers.

    Lunar landers launched empty fit on existing launchers.

    Earth Departure Stages launched empty fit on existing launchers.

    What do we need a new HLV for?

    HLV proponents have to prove that existing launchers are not adequate before I will believe they are necessary. That’s how it works in the real world, not the other way around.

    Show us the plan or concept, and explain how the largest components won’t fit on existing launchers. Then we’ll look at the cost trade-off’s between making those components more modular, or having someone build a larger launcher.

    What’s wrong with doing it that way? Is it holding back a funded HSF mission?

  • VirgilSamms

    Dana is on the private space train.

    Bolden is correct about the HLV.

    It sure is upsetting to private space, but then, the truth has a way of doing that to people who want nothing to do with it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    I got this part of your post…”Space exploitation is not space exploration. ” and then it seems to drift off into well rhetoric.

    Space exploration is not space exploitation…agreed the question then I guess is do we need exploration by humans or exploitation by humans of space right now? I cannot tell which one you think is important, I think that exploitation is.

    If you want exploration then there is really no doubt, particularly in distances out to and including the Moon that uncrewed vehicles are the way to go. Yes humans are probably (in somethings) 30 times more effective then uncrewed vehicles but they are not 30 times of more value. At least as NASA practices it.

    But UNLESS one has some reason to send humans into space other then “gee thats what a big power does” then unless we find something for humans to do that has value for cost and exploits the area…we will never go there in large numbers.

    Put it another way. If on the other side of the Appalachians stretching to the Pacific had been the Sahara. We would never have had a western expansion.

    RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    “Since when is long range planning by an organization suddenly a ‘soviet style 5 year plan.” Anytime that the planning and what is planned becomes more important then reacting to events as they impact the plan.

    As he left Japan for Midway, Admiral Nagumo had a plan. Almost from minute one of combat sticking to his plan seemed to be extremly important. He stuck to it right up until his flagship sunk out from under him.

    Robert G. Oler

  • pathfinder_01

    “I don’t know why Rand and Ron persist in saying that human space EXPLORATION does not need heavy lift when most repitable sources think that it does?”

    Ron, Rand and I are anti SLS more than anti heavy lift. Heavy lift needs to be affordable above all else. SLS is not. Anyway until you define which PAYLOADS you need to launch you should not build the heavy lift. Otherwise it would be like attempting to do Apollo single launch LOR and Apollo tech and specs with a 80ton HLV, can’t be done.

    “Sure, we can do a couple of sorties doing the most basic of “flags and foot prints” stuff but REAL exploration will require large ships, bases and fuel depots that will need heavy lift to accomplish.”

    HLVs esp. government owned ones limit you to flag and foot prints more than anything else. If someone figures out how to life 100tons cheaper than the government owned HLV, you are locked in and can’t switch.

    Anyway large ships, depends on technology and mission. The heavies hab I have seen would only mass 40MT.

    Fuel depots are technology agnostic. They don’t care how the propellant gets there so long as it gets there. An EELV could lift a depot that could hold 60MT worth of propellant. The trick is to launch empty. Prop depots don’t care if you are using HLV or 1 MT RLV.
    Bases are limited not by how much you can lift, but by how much you can land and how frequent you can land it. Single HLV create a single point of faluire.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    Perhaps you should read further- that ‘rhetoric’ is reality, fella. Exploitation is of minimal importance in this field at this time for the reasons stated: limited ROI given the largess of capital investment necessary for space projects of scale– and consequence. That’s why private capital market continue to balk and that’s why governments do it. ‘Hobbyists’ like Musk are always welcomed at their own expense, sans government subsidies, particularly in times when monies are scxare. Exploration is by far the most important, both human and robotic. The ‘Cernan intangibles’ only add to that value .

  • tom

    Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013 and crewed 9-12 months later.

    DENVER — NASA and United Launch Alliance (ULA) managers will hold a
    news conference on Monday, July 18, at ULA headquarters in
    Centennial, Colo., to announce a new Commercial Crew Development
    agreement.

    The news conference will begin at 11 a.m. MDT in the first floor
    conference center.

    To participate, journalists must RSVP to ULA’s Chris Chavez at
    chris.s.chavez@ulalaunch.com by 9 a.m. MDT on Monday. Reporters also
    may participate by calling 800-951-1214. Media representatives must
    call by 11:15 a.m. to join the news conference.

  • Alex

    Where has Major Tom been? I feel like this site needs him in its comment sections now more than ever.

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Williams I noticed in your poll, that most voted for a manned lunar base. The question of all of the above really as no merit, as that will never happen. I too voted for the manned lunar base, because I feel it is most important for mankind to establish a permanence on another space body to help guarantee our species survival. A permanent lunar base would a great first step toward that goal.

  • Bob Mahoney

    One might even suggest that SLS funds could be better spent on developing a mass driver or rail-gun system for lofting inert payload mass, even from the Earth. [Not an easy proposition, but…]

    Mir & ISS have proven that accomplishing ANYTHING in space which requires significant mass up there CAN be accomplished with medium- to low-end-heavy-lift launchers; a number of the posts above describe in detail why this is true and even offer specific launch manifests geared toward achieving possible goals.

    Even Orion (if Congress insists) need not require a new booster just to get it into orbit, and upper stages can be launched separately. We did this back during Gemini, which demonstrated the first use of a separately launched “space tug” with an Agena boosting Gemini 10 to rendezvous with Gemini 8’s discarded Agena stage.

    But if we’re supposedly going to spend government funds on trying to change the paradigm, why not spend them on truly revolutionary breakthroughs that private companies would likely not risk investing in? Figuring out how to sling inert mass (such as propellant or empty hardware) into orbit could be a game changer; we already have systems available for getting people up there to meet it.

    On the dichotomous question of robotic versus human exploration, I thought that canard was dead. When it comes up, it usually prompts me to recall the observations of Edward Teller from the lunar base symposia of the early 80s wherein he suggested that robots are particularly suited for in-space operations since almost everything in free space proper (including items like ISS) is something we placed there…so we can define the tasks the robots would need to grapple with quite effectively ahead of time.

    But once you get down onto (on next to?) any surface, the explorer is going to be dealing with unknowns and the unexpected…and that’s where having a person in the loop—preferably right there on site—pays off, because our particular faculties are especially suited to dealing with the unexpected. Telerobotics and robotics are advancing, yes, but they have a long way still to go to match a human’s ability in this specific capacity.

  • amightywind

    Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013 and crewed 9-12 months later.

    Does this have a source or is it another mindless newspace prayer? Altas is too small for Orion (Atlas V 552??? Solids, yeah!). Delta IV Heavy?

  • Egad

    Costal Ron said,

    > This also fits in with the line of questioning that Congress keeps avoiding when they talk with NASA, which is “What kind of HSF could you do if we didn’t build the SLS and you had to use existing launchers?” Congress doesn’t want the best and brightest of our country to develop space exploration plans, Congress is only focused on building a rocket that produces jobs for the next election cycle.

    It also neatly explains why Congress said Build a BFR by the end of 2016 in our districts rather than, e.g., Resume manned exploration of the Moon by the end of 2020. NASA might have come up with a way to put people on the Moon that did not address the Congressbeings’ core concerns.

  • kayawanee

    tom wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
    Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013 and crewed 9-12 months later.

    Hmmm. I’m not sure how that could happen, given the fact that Congress is hell bent on a government owned HLV, and its lack of support for the commercial guys.

    It does sound interesting, though. I wonder how they would manage the Launch Escape System weight. I believe the Orion spacecraft plus the LAS puts the weight up to 65000 lbs or so, and the max payload to LEO for the Delta IV is about 50,000 lbs. Maybe they would limit the fuel mass in the Service Module. They could probably save about 15,000 lbs there, keeping some fuel in reserve for the RCS.

    I’m interested in knowing more about it. What’s your source for this? Can you provide a news link?

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    ‘Hobbyists’ like Musk

    We’ve known that your understanding of financial terminology has been tenuous at best (inability to understand what subsidies are and the investor market in general), and now we see that your grasp of the english language in general is sorely lacking.

    In what universe is someone that has $3B in customer backorders a “Hobbyist”?

    By definition a “hobby” is “an activity done regularly in one’s leisure time for pleasure“. Since Musk operates SpaceX as a job (CEO & CTO), and the company sells products & services to make a profit, then your use of the word is incorrect. What a revelation!

    Don’t let your jealousies of Elon Musk cloud your judgement.

  • kayawanee

    Stupid me. They could probably just fire the SM engine to complete orbital insertion. Does anybody have the numbers to confirm that?

  • amightywind

    Since Musk operates SpaceX as a job (CEO & CTO), and the company sells products & services to make a profit

    Tesla and SpaceX use the same cynical business model. They sell products and services that fire the liberal imagination in hopes of profiting from subsidies. It’s worked well so far.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013 and crewed 9-12 months later.

    I can believe the MPCV could fly on a Delta IV Heavy in 2013 (LM has talked about this), but in order for Delta IV Heavy to fly crew it needs $1.3B worth of crew safety upgrades.

    That number was quoted by the ULA CEO in 2009, so it may have gone up a bit by now, and he said it would take 4.5 years. The money would have to be in the FY2012 budget to do those upgrades, and since it’s not, I doubt it will happen.

    Besides, no SLS promoter will want to dilute the need for the SLS to launch crew. Once another launcher can do that, and one that costs far less, that removes part of the rational for the SLS. And IIRC, somewhere in the SLS budget legislation it talks about using the early SLS flights to test the MPCV because they want to test out the entire flight envelope (capsule + LV), and not just the capsule.

    Maybe the press conference will be ULA restating that their Atlas V will be used by three of the four CCDev participants, and that they will announce that they are going ahead with the Atlas V crew upgrades on their own, outside of the CCDev program, but with NASA participation. That would be my guess/hope.

  • Martijn Meijering

    in order for Delta IV Heavy to fly crew it needs $1.3B worth of crew safety upgrades.

    I think that number includes much more than just safety upgrades, it also includes a brand new pad which would be the biggest contribution to cost and development time.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Don’t be so hard on yourself. Cernan has him pegged. And, of course ‘we’ know your perception of reality is not only tenuous but blatantly errornous:”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.” Tick-tock, tick-tock, there, fella.

  • I wonder how they would manage the Launch Escape System weight.

    I don’t think it said it would launch with a crew. The point is to show that it can go into space, and return (similar to the first Dragon flight). So they don’t need an LAS.

  • Coastal Ron

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    I think that number includes much more than just safety upgrades, it also includes a brand new pad which would be the biggest contribution to cost and development time.

    Yes, ULA breaks it out into $800M for the pad, and $500m for crew upgrades. Just for reference, they were quoting $400M total for upgrading Atlas V for crew.

  • Egad

    > I can believe the MPCV could fly on a Delta IV Heavy in 2013 (LM has talked about this), but in order for Delta IV Heavy to fly crew it needs $1.3B worth of crew safety upgrades.

    Speaking of that, does anyone know what’s happened to the RS-68B engine? Or whether the increased performance of the RS-68A is relevant to MPCV discussions?

  • Donald Ernst

    RGO did bring up a good point when he mentioned that nethier the space shuttle or the space station turned out as orginally envisioned. The shuttle was ment to be a fully reusable two stage fly-back design able to lift 12 people and between 25,000 and 50,000 lb. Reagan’s station was to be a far larger facility than it worked out to be , his NASA had a extensive industrial research lab planned as well as a assembly and refueling structure for spacecraft. A expert system [AI] computer and even a nuclear reactor for power was considered. Other large space stations or space bases as they were sometimes called were outlined before Reagan. We will never have any thing like these until we have true commerical space flight and the SLS is not going to provide that.

  • Martijn Meijering

    John Boozman (R-AR)

    Why does Boozman care about all this? Has he been promised favours in other areas he does care about?

  • Michael from Iowa

    For the same cost as developing the SLS we could probably get half a dozen reliable commercial LVs running. The development and assembly of the ISS have demonstrated that large structures (or ships *cough cough*) need not be launched as a single payload.

    There’s simply no need for a $1-2 billion per launch, 130 ton-to-LEO rocket when you can carry the same total payload over several launches at a fraction of the cost.

    This should be a no brainer.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Bob Mahoney wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    “Telerobotics and robotics are advancing, yes, but they have a long way still to go to match a human’s ability in this specific capacity.”

    We do telerobotic transcontinental surgery right now. Stitching, cutting, tying knots in a very spatially complicated setting. A person is not only in the loop, but defining the loop, ready for unknowns and the unexpected. I’d say the dextrous capabilities of that rapidly advancing technology is not a lot worse, and might be quite a bit better than a fully space suited human. You going to have a fully suited astronaut try to do a hysterectomy? Ouch!

  • vulture4

    The major cost in man-rating the Delta IV is a new structure for the second stage, which has a design load factor of 1.25 (the spec for unmanned systems) while manned systems, according to the NASA spec, need 1.4. The problem with this is that the safety factor was determined in an era before computers. It covered systems that had to carry people on the first flight (including shuttle). The main rationale for the design load factor was to account for uncertainties int he design process.

    However the DIV can be, and has, flown extensively without a crew, and all loads could be precisely measured with strain gauges. So it is not clear to me why we mechanically adhere to the old requirement. The all-liquid propulsion (in contrast to the Atlas) makes thrust termination possible for launch abort, rather than booster destruction, which reduces hazards significantly.

  • Bob Mahoney

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    We do telerobotic transcontinental surgery right now.

    Are you saying that the ENTIRE surgery team is on the other side of the continent from the patient? I suspect not, and if not it would reinforce my supposition and (I believe) weaken yours.

    But I do acknowledge your point, and I must admit I was unaware that such things were happening today. I was aware of telepresence in such circumstances but not actual remote telerobotic control.

    While I can’t speak to how I’d feel about a hysterectomy, I would certainly be a tad uncomfortable with the notion of someone in an EMU performing a vasectomy…

  • @Dennis Berube

    “Mr. Williams I noticed in your poll, that most voted for a manned lunar base. The question of all of the above really as no merit, as that will never happen. I too voted for the manned lunar base, because I feel it is most important for mankind to establish a permanence on another space body to help guarantee our species survival. A permanent lunar base would a great first step toward that goal.”

    I also put in a vote for a manned lunar base. NASA will never truly be on track again, IMO, until this is done!

    Even if a single Apollo style mission to Mars were possible and was done, I believe it would be quickly followed by an empty feeling at NASA that hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money was invested in pulling off a spectacular stunt rather than investing in permanently expanding the human presence and economic sphere to the Moon and beyond.

    We need to go to the Moon to stay and exploit its natural resources for the long term benefit of our economy! And when we finally do go to Mars, we need to also go there to stay!

  • There’s simply no need for a $1-2 billion per launch, 130 ton-to-LEO rocket when you can carry the same total payload over several launches at a fraction of the cost.

    This should be a no brainer.

    Well, clearly it is, since all the people with no brains seem to support it.

  • kayawanee

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    I don’t think it said it would launch with a crew. The point is to show that it can go into space, and return (similar to the first Dragon flight). So they don’t need an LAS.

    I’ve heard the rumor about a plan to do an uncrewed Orion test flight on a DIVH, but I was referring to tom’s comment:

    Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013 and crewed 9-12 months later.

    I hadn’t heared any rumor about a crewed test flight on either EELV. I was wondering how they might accomplish that with the added weight of the LAS. Then I thought about it, and I realized that I hadn’t thought about using the Orion service module as a third stage.

    Do you think the Orion, with its service module, has the capability to manage orbital insertion?

  • DCSCA

    Donald Ernst wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
    Believe Jim Fletcher sold Reagan on the ‘Space Station Freedom’ concept at projected cost in the mid-80’s of $8 billion and Reagan bought into it because the then Soviet Union was pressing on with their own station development- Mir.

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    The all-liquid propulsion (in contrast to the Atlas)

    The Atlas V 401, which will be used for crewed spacecraft, does not use solid-fuel boosters.

  • Aggelos

    Falcon heavy is the best and cheapest for Orion test to fly..

    If Nasa wants to test it,,before Sls..

    The downside is that falcon has 3.5 m diemeter,,and orion 5..

    But with 30-40 t to leo without crossfeeding Falcon heavy it can launch even a full beo orion,,with maybe land landing capability..

    What do you think ?its possible with weak ares 1 axed,Orion to get back land landing?airbags etc?

  • Martijn Meijering

    The major cost in man-rating the Delta IV is a new structure for the second stage, which has a design load factor of 1.25 (the spec for unmanned systems) while manned systems, according to the NASA spec, need 1.4.

    As I understand it, that’s the MSFC party line, it’s not part of what ULA says is required for safely launching people on a Delta. They talk about the EDS (for which they received CCDev 1 funding) and about adding redundant subsystems, not about structural upgrades AFAIK.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Yes, ULA breaks it out into $800M for the pad, and $500m for crew upgrades. Just for reference, they were quoting $400M total for upgrading Atlas V for crew.

    Thanks! Both the $500M and the $400M include a test flight, don’t they?

  • Fred Willett

    To totally kill off the carnard about HLV being cheaper because of the larger mass to orbit it’s worth comparing the prices.
    SLS estimated (by NASA) to be around the $1B per launch falling to $500M per launch with 8 launches per year.
    Falcon Heavy is $125M per launch for 53t.
    1040t would take 20 flights
    We won’t assume any cost reduction for volume purchase of FH because we want to give SLS the best chance possible of being competitive.
    So here we go.
    SLS lowest price. 8 flights @ $500M ea.= $4B per year launching 1040t
    Against this FH 20 flights @ $125M ea. = $2.5B per year launching 1060t.
    The smaller commercial launcher saves NASA $1.5B a year for the same mass to orbit.
    With the $1.5B saved NASA could actually afford to build some payloads!!!

  • Martijn Meijering

    Do you think the Orion, with its service module, has the capability to manage orbital insertion?

    Wasn’t that always the plan? I don’t think they ever intended the AIUS to do the insertion. And during the Augustine committee hearings there was a proposal from within NASA to use a Delta IV first stage, but not the cryogenic upper stage. The Orion SM would then act as an upper stage. It would have allowed MSFC to use a Delta first stage without giving up their partisan objections to the second stage.

  • tom

    I have a copy of a very good presentation developed by ULA and presented to NASA in May 2010 on just what it takes to crew rate an EELV. It’s a lot less than you think. Atlas V has better LOC/LOM numbers that Falcon 9/Delta IV/Ares 1. Delta IV was lower than Ares 1 for LOM/LOC. Both Atlas and Delta can fly a Centaur Upper Stage. Very little is needed to human rate the Atlas. Mostly some structure. The Delta, add some avionics, sensors and structure. Pad modifications are trivial.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Coastal Ron

    The Atlas V 401, which will be used for crewed spacecraft, does not use solid-fuel boosters.

    actualy, its the 402 that is the baseline for crewed launches (although you are right – it does not use solid boosters)

  • vulture4

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 1:27 am
    vulture4 wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    “The all-liquid propulsion (in contrast to the Atlas)”

    The Atlas V 401, which will be used for crewed spacecraft, does not use solid-fuel boosters.

    My bad. I was thinking of the Orion. The CST-100 is much lighter and makes more sense. You are absolutely right.

  • libs0n

    kayawanee,

    The Orion’s LAS is jettisoned early in flight and so does not exact a full toll on the D4’s payload capability to orbit. The last time I was familiar with this topic, the LAS only had an effective mass cost of 1700lbs.

    Also, the Delta 4’s first stage engine, the RS-68, is being upgraded with increased thrust, the RS-68A, and this will increase the launcher’s payload capability; although I don’t know the exact figure, I believe it was sufficient to launch Orion. This engine upgrade will come online in 2012.

  • Coastal Ron

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 4:32 am

    Thanks! Both the $500M and the $400M include a test flight, don’t they?

    The ULA slide doesn’t mention test, and I would imagine testing was not included.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 8:40 am

    actualy, its the 402 that is the baseline for crewed launches (although you are right – it does not use solid boosters)

    Thanks for the correction. I see the -401 uses a single RL-10 engine, whereas the -402 uses dual RL-10’s for redundancy.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    vulture4 wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 9:12 am

    My bad. I was thinking of the Orion. The CST-100 is much lighter and makes more sense.

    As you can see above we all misstate stuff sometimes, so no worries.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Thanks for the link, Aggelos.

    It looks like DIRECT won again.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Bob Mahoney wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
    “Are you saying that the ENTIRE surgery team is on the other side of the continent from the patient? I suspect not, and if not it would reinforce my supposition and (I believe) weaken yours.”

    There is usually a “supervisory” surgeon that is on site in case something goes wrong. I hardly see a need to have, for example, an anesthesiologist be remotely sited as well. But the “brains and hands” of the surgery are a long ways away. The DaVinci system (which is actually almost a decade old, sold by Intuitive Surgical Inc.) is a commercial product. Off-the-shelf telerobotic surgical architecture. Look it up. Plenty of videos online. I think there are other providers. The “Grips” system of Kraft Technologies is another wonderful tool for transmitting human dexterity. It’s used a lot on undersea telerobotics, for science and oil & gas development.

    I should say that it is my understanding that telerobotic surgery is not really that common yet, though telerobotic mining most certainly is.

    The lack of understanding about modern terrestrial commercial telerobotics seems to be somewhat endemic in the space community. The commercial investment in it is vast, and the technology is advancing explosively.

  • common sense

    @tom wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    “DENVER — NASA and United Launch Alliance (ULA) managers will hold a news conference on Monday, July 18, at ULA headquarters in Centennial, Colo., to announce a new Commercial Crew Development agreement.

    Please note my emphasis. In what way a CCdev agreement would be related to Orion/MPCV? I guess one can read anything they like into that but as far as I know Orion/MPCV is not part of CCDev.

    We’ll see.

    My guess: ULA will announce an agreement with Sierra Nevada or Boeing. I don’t know that there is a standing agreement between all of them. Possibly an agreement with KSC or Vandenberg for launch..

  • amightywind

    The Atlas V 401, which will be used for crewed spacecraft, does not use solid-fuel boosters.

    The 401 is usually used for a geosynchronous transfer mission because of a required restart. The ISS mission would much more likely be accomplished by the 402.

  • Aggelos

    “The Atlas V 401, which will be used for crewed spacecraft, does not use solid-fuel boosters.’

    I think Atlas V 402 will fly commercials,,12t to Leo..with 2 rl-10 on upper stage,.
    atlas 401 is only 9 t. to Leo.

    Atlas 402 I think never launched..

    Its easy to make the 2 engine upper stage?

  • DCSCA

    @tom wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 8:08 am
    “Very little is needed to human rate the Atlas. Mostly some structure. The Delta, add some avionics, sensors and structure. Pad modifications are trivial.”

    All the more reason to press on and do it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is exploration:

    http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/

    Dawn enters orbit around an asteroid bearing the flag of The United States.

    Meanwhile the remnants of Cx sit in hangers and offices that have the flag of The United States stuck on it. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Donald Ernst wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    “RGO did bring up a good point when he mentioned that nethier the space shuttle or the space station turned out as orginally envisioned. The shuttle was ment to be a fully reusable two stage fly-back design able to lift 12 people and between 25,000 and 50,000 lb”

    this is the problem with government programs like the shuttle…what do you do when they fail?

    In retrospect all the people and organizations who in the 1974-79 time frame said “the shuttle wont work” or “keep my payloads off the shuttle” were correct. It should have been clear to all with adult program level and policy level experience by the late 1970’s that the shuttle program needed to be “rethought”.

    By then it was clear to all who had any experience whatsoever that the flight model that made shuttle economics work was not valid period. At somepoint before space policy got committed to the vehicle system we should have started to look at the program in the reality of what it could do, not what it was hoped it would do.

    My excuse for the more or less continued support of the program is that I was in my teenage years! but serious people with serious experience knew (and they must have known at NASA as well) that all the projections were BS.

    Government has a hard time reversing track today on programs and efforts that “dont work” as the fight/rhetoric over SLS must make clear to all. There are always “sub” explanations why the program must continue EVEN when it wont do what it was sold as doing. Kay B. Hutchinson is at least honest in her press release…SLS needs to continue for the federal jobs it brings to her state.

    But what the effort actually does is almost never mentioned by her, or Pete Olson or any of the efforts supporters..and shuttle set the standard for this.

    Why my support for the space station vanished in the late 80’s was that it was becoming clear to my somewhat now older mind that the program was being continued for no real good reason. There was no goal for it (as now must be perfectly obvious)…that it actually was being built to , it was just being built.

    The problem with federal spending is not as the tea party idiots keep babbling “to much spending”. It is that far to much of the spending, most of the spending that they like goes to things which are not productive.

    Wars in iraq/afland, tax cuts for people who are not really pulling their weight in the economy (the uber rich), spending on things like human space programs that have no value for cost (or what one person here calls the “Cernan intangibles”) or military programs that really have no value intodays world (The F-35)…

    It is this money that is just wasted and worse it consumes talent that should be some where else.

    The shuttle, station, and SLS are such programs

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Aggelos wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 8:48 am

    new good article about future sls etc ,,in aviation week..

    pretty good RGO

  • Vladislaw

    “It should have been clear to all with adult program level and policy level experience by the late 1970′s that the shuttle program needed to be “rethought”.”

    We spent billions on Apollo to prove to the Soviet Union and the rest of the world that capitalism was better than communism. So we initated a huge top down command economy style soviet project with no capitalism.

    By the late 1970’s we should have actually turned it over the commercial sector and NASA should have been banned from developing/operating the next systems and should have been required to only buy those services. Hopefully we are finally getting there and take congress out of this equation forever.

  • Rhyolite

    Fred Willett wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 7:04 am
    `
    “With the $1.5B saved NASA could actually afford to build some payloads!!!”

    NASA would also save $10B in SLS development costs and 6 to 8 years in schedule.

  • Rhyolite

    Aggelos wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    “Its easy to make the 2 engine upper stage?”

    Yes, multiple 2 engine Centaur variants have already flow.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    All the more reason to press on and do it [human rate Atlas & Delta].

    Nice wish, but you’re talking about $1.7B here. Put it on your VISA?

    ULA obviously doesn’t want to spend $1.3B to upgrade Delta IV Heavy or $400M for Atlas V unless it really has to, and in cases where there is really only one customer (NASA in this case), usually the customer pays.

    But here’s where it gets complicated.

    Atlas V would not be used for the NASA MPCV, but it would be used by the contractors that NASA needs to service the ISS for NASA. So who should pay for upgrading Atlas V? ULA? NASA? The CCDev participants that might use Atlas V?

    And Delta IV Heavy can lift the MPCV, but Congress wants the SLS to be human rated, and putting the MPCV on a less expensive human rated launcher removes the need for the SLS, so why would Congress want to pay for human rating the Delta IV Heavy? Use it for an unmanned test, sure, but not manned. So who would pay to human rate Delta IV Heavy?

    No rhetoric. Say who, and provide your reasoning.

    And I’ll even go first.

    For Atlas V, NASA should pay, since NASA is the end-use customer for the upgrade. The CCDev participants won’t, especially not without a long-term commitment from NASA to reduce their risk, and ULA won’t unless they get a long-term commitment from NASA. That leaves NASA.

    For Delta IV Heavy it’s a little clearer – no one will pay to make it human rated, at least not as long as the SLS is funded. If the SLS gets cancelled, and the MPCV survives, then I think NASA will pay to upgrade it for the MPCV. But otherwise there is no need.

    Anyone else?

  • Robert G. Oler

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 1:21 pm LOL DIRECT is going no where the entire thing is going to die in this years budget cycle. Watch RGO

  • tom

    Good read.
    http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/

    “New Space advocates claim that as “commercial” entities, they can provide the needed capabilities to service ISS faster and at a fraction of the cost of either Shuttle or a new government system. If this promise sounds familiar, it is because thirty years ago, as part of the marketing for Shuttle, we heard similar arguments. What we learned then was that spaceflight is difficult, unforgiving and expensive. While one could argue that Shuttle is an inherently flawed transportation system, it still is a working system and it works because we expended the time, experience and money needed to make it work.”

  • Vladislaw

    It is not the same arguement at all. The shuttle was under absolutely no competitive market forces like commercial launch firms are under. Commercial firms are less expensive because big projects like the shuttle have to be farmed out to congressional districts that increase the pork costs. This is a very bad comparison to anyone with even the slightest bit of information.

    Why anyone would try and compare government spending and costs versus commercial is nothing more than a closest socialist and if the goverment can spend our tax dollars wiser then lets have the government do every form of commercial activtity .. gosh look how much cheaper everything from toilet paper to houses would be if the government was in charge of doing it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    tom wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    With all due respect (and little is due in all honesty) Paul is living in some old era.

    The shuttle failed because the basic premise of it was flawed…ie NASA had no experience with an operational vehicle that was reuseable…and there was almost no chance of them putting together one that was functional much less operational.

    Paul is way out of his operational expertise. Neither he nor Anne know a darn thing about how to operate an operational vehicle (perhaps they know their car) in a complex environment.

    SpaceX (and OSC and Boeing) have done what NASA did not..they picked reliable technology that was “not pushing the bleeding edge” and hired people who know how to design operational vehicles.

    Sorry Paul is great in his field but in space politics he doesnt know what he is talking about F minus for him RGO

  • kayawanee

    libs0n wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    The Orion’s LAS is jettisoned early…This engine upgrade will come online in 2012.

    That explains it. I see that its possilbe from an engineering standpoint. Though, I’m not so optimistic about political support for such a plan.

    Thanks for the info.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Good read.
    http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/

    It’s been debunked.

    Paul tries to use a poorly run government program to justify why a commercial company’s cost structure will be like a government program – he doesn’t make sense when you think about it.

    In the paragraph that you quote, nowhere does he use non-government examples of why government can be less expensive. Every example is the Shuttle, which as we all remember, was “the most complex machine ever built”. Why would that be a shining example of low cost ways to get to space?

    I’m a manufacturing guy, not a rocket scientist, so I like to look at cost numbers. And from numbers I’ve seen for both government systems and commercial ones, commercial space transportation systems could be about 10X less expensive than what NASA is building. Certainly what SpaceX has spent so far follows that pattern, and certainly what NASA has spent on the Orion/MPCV has followed that pattern too.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that NASA is building is exploration-class hardware, whereas the CCDev program is basic transportation to LEO only. That’s another area where Paul gets confused, since he’s trying to compare something like a Rolls Royce Phantom to a Honda minivan.

    Lastly the prime reason why there has been no successful efforts at lowering cost is because there has been no competition. Who could have competed with the government subsidized Shuttle? Bring competition into the mix, and just like we’ve seen in every other industry, prices will fall and innovation will increase.

  • pathfinder_01

    “While one could argue that Shuttle is an inherently flawed transportation system, it still is a working system and it works because we expended the time, experience and money needed to make it work.”

    However there is a world of difference between a Chevy and a Porsche in terms of costs to own, operate and repair. One is a lot cheaper to build and operate than the other. Space maybe expensive but it does not have to be as expensive as a shuttle flight and it cannot remain so expensive if humanity is to do more than a few stuns in space. The price to orbit must come down.

    I doubt even the most complicated on like dream chaser will need as much labor to maintain. It won’t have fuel cells or APU’s (battery technology has advanced and dream chaser will not attempt to be a pseudo spacestation like the shuttle (i.e. just deliver crew)). It will have learned from the shuttle what is easy to repair and what is not. Although both use tiles Dream chaser has fewer tiles to inspect and they hopefully are less likely to get damaged at the top of the rocket. Atlas is a cheaper launcher than the shuttle (esp. launch costs of around 200 million) and Atlas has other users to spread it costs over. Unlike something shuttle derived it is build out of parts originally designed to be disposable (i.e. be as cheap as possible and do the job). Shuttle was designed to be reusable without any experience in reusability or any attempt to control costs.

  • Bennett

    tom wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    The article may be a good read, but the quote you provided doesn’t make any sense. It’s not even a circular argument, as it makes a statement and then changes the subject.

    “If this promise sounds familiar, it is because thirty years ago, as part of the marketing for Shuttle, we heard similar arguments.”

    What? Someone in the NASA’s marketing department was arguing that commercial space was a better and less expensive option?

    “While one could argue that Shuttle is an inherently flawed transportation system, it still is a working system and it works because we expended the time, experience and money needed to make it work.”

    So, we should stick with it? Even though it’s flawed and has no mission?

    I submit that Atlas, Delta, and Falcon rockets work well because Boeing, LockMart, and SpaceX expended the time, experience and money needed to make them work.

    It’s time to move on, and looking back at the shuttle with dewy eyes is a crock of BS.

    The NASA-Senate-shuttle industrial base killed real HSF from 1985 to 2010, and I’m glad it’s dead.

  • Rhyolite

    ““New Space advocates claim that as “commercial” entities, they can provide the needed capabilities to service ISS faster and at a fraction of the cost of either Shuttle or a new government system.”

    We know other entities can provide the services to ISS for cheaper than NASA because every else who services ISS does it cheaper than NASA.

    Soyuz is less expensive at delivering crew.

    ATV is less expensive at delivering cargo.

    HTV is less expensive at delivering cargo.

    Progress is less expensive at delivering cargo.

    Proton is less expensive at delivering large modules.

    Unless you are saying that American industry is somehow uniquely incapable of matching the capabilities of the Europeans, Russians, and Japanese, then it should be obvious that American industry can service ISS cheaper than NASA.

  • Rhyolite

    “It’s unlikely, but I would laugh my head off if the independent cost analysis returned that all of NASA’s current cost and schedule estimates for SLS were inflated by a factor of at least 50% for no obvious reason.”

    How often has NASA:

    1) overestimated the cost of something by 50%?

    2) underestimated the cost of something by 50%?

    Recent history would suggest 2) is 20 times more likely to happen than 1) with SLS.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    Nice wish, but you’re talking about $1.7B here. Put it on your VISA?

    =yawn=That tally is less than one week’s cost of funding the war in Afghanistan for Uncle Sam, and would be a wiser, smarter investment. Big numbers scare you, don’t they. Here’s a small one for you that led to a big step- 42. Forty-two years ago today Apollo 11 was launched to the moon. Tick-tock, tick-tock, there, NewSpace fella.

  • DCSCA

    “It should have been clear to all with adult program level and policy level experience by the late 1970′s that the shuttle program needed to be “rethought”.”

    ??? That’s just the point- it WAS rethought, redesigned and reconfigured over, and over and over again as budgets evaporated and customers were sought to guarantee business and funding- and it morphed into something for everyone which ultimately satisfied no one.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    “Why my support for the space station vanished in the late 80′s was that it was becoming clear to my somewhat now older mind that the program was being continued for no real good reason.”

    Your well documented disdain for HSF aside, the program was, in fact, being continued for a very good ‘reason’ and the rationale lobbyed strongly by then NSS Exec. Director Lori Garver, now NASA Associate Administrator (and she stil lshills for it) – as a multi-decade works program for the aerospace industry. Pre corporate welfare aka pork. Of course, th initial investment pushed by Reagan as a counterweight to the Soviet Union’s developkment of MIR and on the recomendations of Jim Fletcher with initial projected costs of $8 billion for ‘Space Station Freedom.’ but that rationale dissolved along with the Berlin Wall.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 11:43 am
    “You have no clue whatsoever what Dana thinks”.

    Ahh, but you do, of course. Birds of a feather. He’s conservative wreckage left over from the Reagan days. A dinosaur. What a surprise.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Good read.
    http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/

    More self-interested shilling from Paul Spudis.

  • tom quoted:

    “If this promise sounds familiar, it is because thirty years ago, as part of the marketing for Shuttle, we heard similar arguments.”

    So we should never, ever try anything new because some bureaucrats lied in 1972?! What a silly argument.

    “While one could argue that Shuttle is an inherently flawed transportation system, it still is a working system and it works because we expended the time, experience and money needed to make it work.”

    The decision was made in January 2004 to cancel Shuttle once ISS construction was complete because it’s a “complex and risky system,” to quote the CAIB report. They would have recommended cancelling it then if there had been a replacement available to build ISS. The Shuttle’s retirement has been planned for seven years and it’s absurd to suggest it keep flying. Fourteen deaths are the reason why it’s being retired.

    It’s endlessly amusing how some people who can’t let go of the past ignore the CAIB report. Talk about denial.

  • Bennett

    “…and I’m glad it’s dead.”

    Meaning the Shuttle of course.

  • vulture4

    I am not (any more) an engineer, but it appears that in LEO launches the single-engine Atlas second stage would become thrust-limited. The dual-engine 402 has a higher LEO payload capacity and appears to be the recommended version for LEO missions whether manned or unmanned.
    http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/Atlas5.pl.guide.pdf

  • amightywind

    Atlas 402 I think never launched..

    No, but two engine Centaurs have flown hundreds of times on other Altas and Titan vehicles and until recently were the norm.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/15/7092706-boeing-runs-hard-in-new-space-race#.TiDv4Fqkz2U

    this is entertaining I will need to think on it some more before commenting RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 2:01 am

    “Your well documented disdain for HSF aside,” only in your mind!

    ” the program was, in fact, being continued for a very good ‘reason’ and the rationale lobbyed strongly by then NSS Exec. Director Lori Garver, now NASA Associate Administrator (and she stil lshills for it) – as a multi-decade works program for the aerospace industry.”

    Points and times of contention between Lori Garver and I (I called at one meeting for her firing or resignation from NSS) are well known so I dont have to carry any real water there.

    On the other hand if you want my professional opinion of Lori.

    She is one smart person who is a savy political operative with a single ended goal of occupying a political position of some merit in an administration…and probably using that position to catapult herself into some higher position. I have no doubt she wants to be administrator of NASA…I doubt she will get there but she is “on the edge” of what it takes to do it.

    Hence her suggestions to the politicians who she serves is always pretty much “curved smoothed” not by her ideology (in which I think she is bland…I dont think she has any real notions of “space policy” ) but by her desire to “fit in” to wherever things are actually going. That is the “savy political operative” part of the description.

    One can see this in her support for the space station in the 90’s. What you call supporting aerospace companies (and there might be some of that) I call “supporting how the trends in politics are going”.

    ISS survived because 1) the Clinton administration found a political reason for it and 2) Psycho Dan was able to “narrow” the scope of the design to something NASA could do and that met the goals of number 1.

    My level of disagreement with Garver came over ISS…and what became clear to me was that she simply could not think out of the box of the cancellation of ISS and the focus on research projects etc…for the same reason that people like Whittington still support Cx.

    RGO

  • Martijn Meijering

    let’s do the best for our taxpayers by holding on to the experienced people that we have.

    This illustrates the utter contempt Hutchison has for the US taxpayer. She knows what she’s saying is a lie and in fact the very opposite of the truth.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 1:42 am

    That tally is less than one week’s cost of funding the war in Afghanistan for Uncle Sam, and would be a wiser, smarter investment.

    Maybe you don’t understand how the government works. Unless Congress puts an appropriation in an approved budget, and the President signs it, it doesn’t matter whether the Treasury can print the check, the check won’t get printed.

    The question you avoid is WHO will step up and get the check written? Will Congress? ULA? The CCDev participants? And why?

  • vulture4

    “They would have recommended cancelling it then if there had been a replacement available to build ISS.”

    Not true. The CAIB were just people and their findings can be questioned, but _what_ they said is not in question because it is in the report.

    The CAIB said that, provided safety standards were maintained, the Shuttle could continue to fly safely until a replacement system was operational, and that even after that point it could continue to fly when its unique capabilities were needed. There was no suggestion that it should be shut down when the ISS had reached the arbitrary point of “assembly complete”. That was a decision of the Bush Administration, which also planned to abandon ISS in 2010.

    The CAIB also said that the replacement system should be designed solely for human access to LEO, and that a more ambitious program would fail. They hit the nail on the head with that one. The Constellation plan to bypass LEO and go directly to the moon, and to leave us with no human launch capability at all for years, contradicted the CAIB recommendations on multiple poins.t

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    That was a decision of the Bush Administration, which also planned to abandon ISS in 2010.

    The ISS budget was needed for Constellation’s future growth needs, and the date was 2015, not 2010.

    The CAIB also said that the replacement system should be designed solely for human access to LEO, and that a more ambitious program would fail. They hit the nail on the head with that one.

    Funny how Congress never looks into why so many programs fail at NASA, but outside observers are able to see it. Yet more proof that NASA is viewed as a source of funding for political needs, and not for NASA’s true mission.

  • Everett L.(Rett) Williams II

    The SLS is nothing but an attempt to keep ATK, LM, and ULA in the cost-plus business. At some point, if we intend to stay in space, we must commoditize access to space. There are insufficient missions for an SLS to pay for itself in any fashion. We do need a heavy lift, but not a super-heavy. Neither Atlas V nor Delta IVH will be able to put the full MPCV with service module into space without drastic upgrades and at least five years, and probably much more.

    That then brings to mind the purpose of the MPCV. It cannot carry sufficient crew to even act as a lifeboat for the ISS, much less any other real purpose. Of the remaining crew vehicles, only the DreamMaker and the SpaceX Dragon capsule carry sufficient people to take that role, and the DreamMaker is too heavy and too expensive to efficiently do the job. The Dragon is a lightweight capsule that can withstand direct re-entry from the Moon or Mars, and is light enough to be carried along for a trip to either. On the other hanbd, the service module could be a useful adjunct to the Dragon or a similar capsule. The only problem is that there is no other capsule with the capacity and capability of the Dragon that can be made human ready within 5 years and maybe longer. If we want to take over from the Russians our access to the ISS, especially for crew, the only real near term possibility is the Dragon riding the Falcon 9, and it can be sped up with only a tiny fraction of the dollars that are being wasted on the MPCV and the useless SLS. This is not an ad for SpaceX, but it might as well be, because they are the only group that has actually done the things that are necessary to get us where we need to be, and is willing to sign a fixed price contract, as they already have for resupply of the ISS.

    Instead, we are providing over 2 billion for an MPCV and SLS that will not be ready soon, that will not meet our needs, and that will cost us money that we do not have. NASA needs to be developing a nuclear powered set of transport modules similar to the VASIMR, so that what is put into orbit and assembled, can be sent wherever it needs to go in our solar system. We need to accept the Falcon 9 Heavy as the prototype of a truly capable and affordable EELV, challenge the other vendors to compete with it on a fixed price basis, actually bidding for and signing fixed price contracts. Right now, the military/intelligence services are paying ULA more per year for just maintaining DIVH launch capability than SpaceX has spent on it’s entire development and testing and manufacturing and launch facilities over 9 years. SpaceX has more flights on the manifest than the combined flight schedule for Atlas and Delta because commercial vendors see the quality of the program and the hardware. If you think that SpaceX is a hobby, why not actually look at what it has done. I’d love for them to have some competition, but these other companies don’t know how to build carefully and properly on a budget. These other companies have 30-50 years of fully subsidized existence. Why can;t they use that as leverage to compete.

    We have our answer in the SLS and the MPCV. They and their Congressional allies want another guaranteed sup at the government tit. Put it all up for bids on fixed price contracts and here is what will happen. Either the Delta or the Atlas will go away entirely, because they are not complementary but competitive, and neither is economical at current flight levels. Research on engines and projects that cannot be flown economically will go away. Solid boosters for anything but pure cargo missions will go away entirely because of safety issues. Non-reusable first stages will go away entirely, because we can no longer afford single use vehicles. Most of the cargo competitors to SpaceX will go into bankruptcy because they are not true independent efforts with control of their technology and costs. Ditto for most of the crew projects, because most of them are back door efforts to revive failed NASA projects.

    I really liked the use of the idea of exploration vs explotation. Rather than competitors, they are required elements of any permanent space presence, and beyond com-sats and global observation sats, space-based solar power is the only thing that has real promise to provide the benefits and the economic basis that will keep us there. We cannot lift what we need from Earth, so we will need material from asteroids or the Moon or both for such purposes. That is where we must head, and as soon as possible. All else will grow from that, but we will have to fund the beginning of that base.

    Everett L.(Rett( Williams II

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 11:40 am

    “Your well documented disdain for HSF aside,” only in your mind!”
    =yawn= Uh, no, its actually it’s in your own words as peppered across this forum. Example:

    “Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm “First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.”
    .
    Matt understands your disdain as well: “Matt Wiser wrote @ September 6th, 2010 at 12:17 am So Oler finally came out and put it on the table: complete and total opposition to human exploration…”

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 11:58 am

    It’s clear you don’t. Because it doesn’t.

  • vulture4

    Actually, when it comes to money, there are two things to consider.

    1. The SLS is a black hole into which NASA is being asked to throw almost $2 billion irreplaceable taxpayer dollars this year alone. The NASA leadership would understandably prefer to use the money for something useful.

    2. Apollo was cancelled because sending people into space with ELVs is much too expensive to be practical, and will remain so. Even Musk has said as much. That is why we built the Shuttle, and though it was the very first attempt and hobbled by major design errors, reusable systems remain the only practical approach to human spaceflight.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 11:40 am
    Nonsense. Garver’s a lightweight. This writer challenged her judgement as well face to face in a media forum back in her NSS days. She’s a lobbyist by trade and her current gig is a matter of facilitating procurment. She’ll be gone along w/Bolden soon enough.

  • Bob Mahoney

    Sorry Paul is great in his field but in space politics he doesnt know what he is talking about F minus for him RGO

    Now THAT is funny.

    The clearest sign that an auto mechanic doesn’t know what he is talking about (or that he’s BS’ing you to make a dishonest buck) is when he spends half his explanation of your car’s trouble by deriding the other guy who fixed the car before he worked on it.

    Not that such a tendency isn’t rampant here…

    LOL. Twice or three times.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bob Mahoney wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 4:16 pm ..

    there was no humor in your post to laugh at, all I could find really was an attempt to distract from the message Paul has. Paul makes these statements then never can defend them. If one tries engaging him on the Air And Space forum, he simply wont allow them to be posted. He lives in an echo chamber. RGO

  • vulture4 wrote:

    Not true. The CAIB were just people and their findings can be questioned, but _what_ they said is not in question because it is in the report.

    My source was a member of the CAIB board. It’s not in the report. They couldn’t recommend shutting down Shuttle in 2004 because there would not have been a way of completing the ISS. But they certainly considered recommending the end of Shuttle in 2004.

  • Coastal Ron

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    If one tries engaging him [Paul Spudis] on the Air And Space forum, he simply wont allow them to be posted. He lives in an echo chamber.

    I’ve experienced the same, and I spoke to his editor about it since I’m an Air & Space subscriber (i.e. I’m subsidizing Paul’s ability to post). Vladislaw was able to make some nice observations on Paul’s latest topic, and interesting enough, the person who posted the most was our own Gary Church.

    After speaking to the editor I tried posting, and despite Paul’s claim that I was not “banned for life” from posting, the next few posts I made did not make it through (Paul deleted them). Then I spoke to his editor again, and now my posts go through (so far).

    Be aware though that Paul uses your posts on other blogs (like this one) as justification for why you shouldn’t be allowed to post on his Air & Space one.

    And just to be clear, the Air & Space editor was very nice and very responsive, so I do applaud him for addressing the matter.

    The whole situation made me very appreciative of this blog and our host Jeff Foust. Thanks Jeff!

  • Joe

    Mr. Faust,

    Given my own history on this website with post being deleted for no reason or explanation, I find this conversation both interesting and nauseating.

    I am sure you will (as you have at least 4 times in the past – with me) delete (or edit) this post as well. I could care less, when you delete it, I will know you read it and understand the true situation.

  • Bennett

    @ Everett L. (Rett) Williams II

    That’s an excellent crystal ball you have there. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out so clearly. That which wasn’t forecasting, but rather simply observing, was of the same high quality.

    I look forward to reading more of your comments!

  • Jeff Foust

    A gentle reminder to keep your comments related to the subject of the original post; discussion of comment policies of various sites is off topic. Thank you for your cooperation and participation.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    I concur, that was one of the options discussed by the CAIB and rejected for the reason that you note. RGO

  • vulture4

    I have watched four successive NASA Administrators (Goldin, O’Keefe, Griffin, Bolden) each do or say ridiculous things. Whatever her ideology may be, I am not aware of Garver ever making a statement that was not carefully reasoned and logical. If this makes her a smooth politician, so be it. If we can persuade her to adopt what we feel is a good strategy (if we can ever agree on one), she seems like a person who could effectively implement it.

  • vulture4

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    They couldn’t recommend shutting down Shuttle in 2004 because there would not have been a way of completing the ISS.

    If the CAIB actually considered ISS assembly the only reason for keeping the Shuttle flying they would have recommended canceling it at assembly complete, as Nelson claimed they did in a recent symposium. But that is not what they recommended. They recommended continuing to fly the Shuttle until a US replacement vehicle was operational, and even after that if its capability was needed. In fact the portrayal of the safety of a launch vehicle as constant with time is simplistic. See
    http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03.html for a detailed discussion.

    One cannot claim support from an authority who does not voice support. If there were members of the CAIB who did not agree with the report, they obviously didn’t convince the majority of the board or even have the courage to speak out. To suggest the Shuttle should continue to fly if they actually believed it to be unsafe would have been a blatant abrogation of their responsibility.

  • Heavy-Lift had a definite mission: the Moon; with soon-to-be definable space craft & payload parameters. But then, Barack Obama stepped in, to screw up the Return-to-the-Moon plan, and turn Luna into a forbidden planet. He cares nothing about human spaceflight! He’s just a starry-eyed Trekkie! Without a new manned Moon mission, you have zero motivation for building a Heavy-Lift launcher. A human Lunar return is the most obvious application for such a rocket. Why do you all think that the Planetary Society types so strongly opposed it, from the get-go??! If Ares 5 would’ve been constructed, that would’ve opened the way to renewed Lunar exploration—the very thing that these “Anywhere-but-the-Moon” advocates wanted nothing to do with. So the American space program has just been decimated by the White House. No American astronaut will fly an American-built craft for multiple years, just so all these rank amateur commercial firms can get exclusive first crack at the job. Obama’s space policy is a screwed-up sham!!!

  • Robert G. Oler

    vulture4 wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 2:43 pm ..

    Pretty good comments and alongwith the notion of NASA after Apollo I concur completely.

    one thing I noted was this…

    “Apollo was cancelled because sending people into space with ELVs is much too expensive to be practical, and will remain so. ”

    An issue is that there really is no historical analogy for either settling or exploiting space with people…need to think about this in regards to your question RGO

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    I concur, that was one of the options discussed by the CAIB and rejected for the reason that you note. RGO

    I think the Rogers Commission chose not to go there because the nation had just spent billions and billions building the fleet. To say in 1986 it had been a mistake wouldn’t have been palatable politically, so they just didn’t address it.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Paul is great in his field but in space politics he doesnt know what he is talking about”

    It took me a while to understand where Paul Spudis is coming from. He’s a lunar scientist, but his space aspirations are not based predominantly on science. He uses the word “exploration”, but what he’s really passionate about has little to do with experiencing new places. What Paul is about is colonization of space. His arguments are all consistent with, and in many respects are sensible, with regard to that. The trouble is that the colonization of space is not an established national priority. He has never managed to absorb that.

  • Robert G. Oler

    vulture4 wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 12:00 am

    “If the CAIB actually considered ISS assembly the only reason for keeping the Shuttle flying they would have recommended canceling it at assembly complete, ”

    there is no real point in banting this back and forth,…but it is important to note that with 1 flight exception this is exactly what ended up happening.

    The real meat of these commissions occur in the “private briefings”…

    It would have been impossible to say “the space shuttle is unsafe to fly after station complete, but its OK to fly up to that”. No politician would have bought off on that for good reason. I’ve not sat in on meetings at this high a level, but I have sat in (chaired) meetings on some levels of government; and the real story in these commissions is what they tell you behind closed doors.

    Actually it really doesnt take that..there is no way to read the CAIB report and not recognize that every launch is the equivalent to Russian Roulette Any federal government manager worth their salt seeing what happend with Columbia, the way management was near “goofy” levels (if not passed that) would have said “get me out of this”.

    The “recertify the system” is just Sir Humphreyese for saying “put the blame on someone else”.

    Thats it for me on this…but there is a reason, and it wasnt money Arbusto (Bush the last) who never met a goofy decision he didnt like, bought into this one quickly.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Whatever her ideology may be, I am not aware of Garver ever making a statement that was not carefully reasoned and logical. If this makes her a smooth politician, so be it.

    Smooth politician? LOL! She is the most polarizing person in the NASA leadership. She would not be confirmed as Administrator by the current congress – she is despised by the GOP. Her future prospects with a GOP majority are even bleaker. Lori Garver successfully rode Obama’s coattails to the top of NASA. Her vendetta with Mike Griffin caused a lot of collateral damage in the process. Her prospects will similarly diminish as the socialist tide continues to go out.

    Michael Griffin has been increasingly vocal about NASA. He might be headed back to the top job.

    http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/07/nasa_heavy-lift_rocket_support.html

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/6/working-with-china-opens-door-to-espionage/

  • @ablastofhotair
    Michael Griffin has been increasingly vocal about NASA. He might be headed back to the top job.

    In your dreams. This comment is even more deluded that most of yours.

  • vulture4

    I am astonished by the degree of racism and political polarization on the Alabama sight you link to, not in the article but in so many of the reader comments. Is this what we have become? We cannot make decisions on our future in space on the basis of the President’s skin color.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 8:54 am

    ” She would not be confirmed as Administrator by the current congress – she is despised by the GOP.”

    that post is pretty goofy.

    No one has put Garver up for administrator and it is unlikely that they will, Bolden will serve out the first term easily. The Congress does not have to confirm the NASA administrator, only the Senate.

    Griffin is not headed back to “the top job”.

    As for polarizing…lol. The only people polarizing are the Cx die hard folks. They want to continue a program that had failed, with no logical explanation how to “unfail” it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Michael Griffin has been increasingly vocal about NASA. He might be headed back to the top job.

    I can see the Congressional hearings now:

    Chairman – “Mr. Griffin, you were the architect of the Constellation program, as well as the NASA Administrator during most of the programs life, what is the status of that program?”

    Michael Griffin – “Mr. Chairman, the GAO, as well as an independent outside commission, determined that the program lacked a business case, and that it was horribly over-budget and over-schedule. Congress, including you Mr. Chairman, decided the best thing to do was kill the program.”

    Chairman – “And Mr. Griffin, what about the largest science program NASA had going during your tenure, the JWST?”

    Michael Griffin – “Mr. Chairman, during my administration of the program, the program went excessively over-budget as well as over-schedule, and I did not step in to reform management or get the program back on schedule. This past Congress then cancelled it as an example to future science program of what not to do.”

    Chairman – “Mr. Griffin, would you run NASA the same way you ran it previously if given the chance?”

    Michael Griffin – “Yes Mr. Chairman, I would.”

    Chairman – “I’m afraid you would too, and that’s why I will vote against your confirmation. Good day sir.”

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 12:14 am

    He’s just a starry-eyed Trekkie!

    I think you’re right. And since Trekkies want to go everywhere, isn’t that a better way to plan for the future instead of “Moon Only”?

    The Moon is only the closest place on our journey into space, not he ultimate destination.

    Without a new manned Moon mission, you have zero motivation for building a Heavy-Lift launcher.

    Building a NASA HLV leaves no money for ANY exploration.

    Chris, it’s great to have enthusiasm, but the only thing that has held us back from returning to the Moon, or going anywhere beyond the Moon, is money. Solve that problem, and you’ll go back.

    Regarding the SLS, where is the money to build the lunar landers? Where is the money to build the lunar habitats? Where is the money to build the ISRU equipment? Where is the money to build the Earth-Moon transportation system that will take astronauts back and forth during their duty rotations? Where is the money for the cargo missions to supply a Moon effort?

    Chris, how much money will a Moon program cost, and where is it coming from?

    Congress is getting ready to cut NASA’s budget by 10%, not increase it, so where is the money coming from?

    No one is going anywhere until they can answer the money question.

  • William Mellberg

    Doug Lassiter wrote:

    “It took me a while to understand where Paul Spudis is coming from. He’s a lunar scientist, but his space aspirations are not based predominantly on science. He uses the word “exploration”, but what he’s really passionate about has little to do with experiencing new places. What Paul is about is colonization of space. His arguments are all consistent with, and in many respects are sensible, with regard to that. The trouble is that the colonization of space is not an established national priority. He has never managed to absorb that.”

    I cannot understand why it took you a while to “understand where Paul Spudis is coming from.” His views have been well-known for years. And I suspect Dr. Spudis is fully aware of the fact that space colonization is not an established national priority. That, I imagine, is why he has been advocating the cause for so many years, just as others promote so-called “commercial” space. That your vision (or others) might not be consistent with his does not mean Spudis is wrong. If our ultimate goal isn’t to explore and colonize space, then why bother sending humans out of Earth’s atmosphere at all? Just so “average” multi-millionaires can take joy rides into LEO? (Let’s be sure to tax them heavily when they do.)

    I do tend to agree with some of the critics about the SLS. Why build a rocket for which there are no specific missions presently being planned? It’s a bit like Boeing building a new jetliner for which no market has been identified (i.e., putting the horse before the cart). At the moment, NASA is on a “Mission to Nowhere.” President Obama’s words about missions to asteroids and to Mars are just that … words (read off a teleprompter). He has provided no direction to America’s space program. And “if we don’t watch where we are going, we will end up where we are headed.”

    The SLS only makes sense to support the development of cislunar space — not for a brief, one-shot rendezvous with a near Earth asteroid whizzing past our planet, or for an imaginary voyage to Mars.

    The next President and the next NASA Deputy Administrator have their work cut out for them undoing the damage that has been inflicted upon America’s space program by Barack Obama and Lori Garver. Hopefully, they can begin that job in January 2013. But for thousands of experienced American space workers (whose jobs will now be performed by Russian space workers using American tax dollars), it is already too late. Thank you, Mr. President, for destroying a highly-skilled workforce in the midst of the greatest economic slump since the Great Depression. At least you’re creating more “shovel ready” jobs in Moscow and Baikonur.

    “Hope and Change” was Obama’s chant in 2008.

    I “hope” things “change” starting with a new President in the White House (and a new, competent management team at NASA HQ) in January 2013.

    How appropriate that the final landing of the Space Shuttle coincides with the anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon. One event marked the bold vision of one president. The other marks the myopic view of another president.

  • tom

    Some points to consider. In 1961 we flew people to space on rockets in small one man capsules. In 1981 we flew people to space in a very large reusable spacecraft. Wow, what an accomplishment for only 20 years. The Space Shuttle opened space to the world. Spacelab, planetary missions, military, Hubble, etc .The Shuttle was not just to build but to service major space station(s). Twice a year was all we asked.. :)

    Now we have a commercial cargo capability in work, commercial crew that will be harmed by the politics of the last year and no mission for NASA for a few many years to come. Think about it, one day (within 10 years or less) ISS will end. ISS was designed for 15 years and some of her system had been build back in the early 90’s. What then? No ongoing NASA human space flight missions or base on the moon, no missions to Mars. When ISS is gone, new space has no solid customer base. New space can’t lead the way into the solar system, but they should be a part.

    Lori and Co. have gotten closer to making NASA like the old NACA than anyone else in years. The business case does not exist to make new space viable without government help. They way Lori handled it makes sure that help will not come from the congress.

  • DCSCA

    “I am not aware of Garver ever making a statement that was not carefully reasoned and logical.”

    Then you must have missed Garver’s flawed pitch for the space station in her NSS days in the 80’s, which had zero rationale at the time except to serve as a multi-decade aerospace works project for the contractors she was fronting for through her NSS gig. She’s a procuror; a lobbyist, no more, no less.

  • Gary Miles

    @Doug Lassiter

    Perhaps you should actually ready some of Paul Spudis columns before making erroneous claim.

    From “One Small Step” to Settlement

  • kayawanee

    tom wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
    Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013 and crewed 9-12 months later.

    DENVER — NASA and United Launch Alliance (ULA) managers will hold a news conference on Monday, July 18, at ULA headquarters in Centennial, Colo., to announce a new Commercial Crew Development agreement.

    Sorry, but I think you were a bit premature. It looks like this has little or nothing to do with Orion. It’s an unfunded agreement, which will help NASA assess the utility of launching crews to ISS using the Atlas V.

    The article below mentions both the Dream Chaser & CST-100 as possibly utilizing the Atlas V. There is no mention of either Orion or MPCV in this article.

    ULA CCDev Agreement with NASA

  • John Malkin

    vulture4 wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 12:00 am

    “If the CAIB actually considered ISS assembly the only reason for keeping the Shuttle flying they would have recommended canceling it at assembly complete, ”

    CAIB said if you wanted to keep Shuttle flying , it should be “recertified” but that it would always be an experimental vehicle. Bush was the first formal public direction to announce retirement of the shuttle after ISS completion. Nobody had any intent to keep Shuttle going for an extended period of time. It was recognized at that NASA had to replace it with something “safer”. When it came to extending Shuttle for the short term, it fell on deaf ears with the Congressional subcommittees. They didn’t lift a finger to extend Shuttle. I guess they thought it was an SEP (Somebody Else’s Problem).

  • tom

    NASA’s been working to replace the shuttle for 20 years. X-33 and a 1/3, NLS, OSP, etc.. Orion gives the US gov a spacecraft. EELV a way to fly crew to ISS before anyone else. So if we have a NASA s/c that can reach ISS on a proven EELV what do I need SpaceX for? NASA has no great mission (how’s new space going to get us into the solar system). The Govs not going now, you killed the customer. You need Gov money and you will get little after 2013.

  • Coastal Ron

    kayawanee wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    It’s an unfunded agreement, which will help NASA assess the utility of launching crews to ISS using the Atlas V.

    I figured it would be, since there is no money for anything else. It’s a smart move by ULA though, since it keeps them in the running for whoever (besides SpaceX) gets funded for the final CCDev contract (whenever that is).

    There is no mention of either Orion or MPCV in this article.

    Unless there is $1.3B unallocated in the upcoming NASA budget, there won’t be any upgrades to allow Delta IV Heavy to carry crew on the MPCV. Maybe Lockheed Martin will be able to convince Congress to allow an unmanned test (still at least $400M), but flying the MPCV with crew on anything but the SLS takes away part of the (tenuous) need for the SLS.

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 11:46 am
    ” It’s a bit like Boeing building a new jetliner for which no market has been identified (i.e., putting the horse before the cart).”

    And Boeing would never do that. Never.

    The problem for SLS is not that no market has been identified, it is that no market exist. Period.

    Look Paul S and a lot of other people look on space, well human spaceflight anyway as an entitlement, they are entitled to spending there with little or no justification for it. SLS is an example of this.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 11:46 am

    And I suspect Dr. Spudis is fully aware of the fact that space colonization is not an established national priority.

    The lack of a national priority (or National Imperative as I like to call it) is definitely lacking, and it’s not something a President or Congress can just declare on their own and everyone falls in line.

    Apollo was a political effort, and once it was done there was no “national priority” to keep going to the Moon, or even to go back. Sure there are lots of reasons we can think up to justify the need to go back, but there is no National Imperative to drive that. Until that happens, there will be lots of competing “reasons”, with everyone dissing the “other guys” plans.

    But while people squabble over grand plans that tend to collapse under their own weight, the people and companies that work on the functional and incremental improvements in our capabilities will make the most progress. Now that could be small NASA programs that run a small but scrappy program, or it could be commercial folks that team up with others, but that’s where my money is.

    If you haven’t seen the handwriting on the Congressional wall, there is no money for new grand exploration plans, so argue all you want about what should be the next destination. Unless you can do your exploration on a shoestring budget, you’re not getting off the ground.

  • The Space Review also has this new article on SLS:

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1886/1

    Rohrabacher, at least publically, appeared to be in the minority about the focus on SLS over alternative missions. The SLS may yet end up with most or all of the proposed funding when the 2012 budget cycle is wrapped up (which may be many months from now, if 2011 is any guide), and later this summer, or shortly thereafter, we may know what exactly the SLS will look like. However, the future of a heavy-lift rocket proposed by Congress and accepted by NASA last year is still far from certain.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Coastal Ron,

    Crazy notion on my part, but just an idea – lets leave Delta IV not man-rated, and launch Orion on it unmanned.

    We’ll have 3-4 shuttles we can take to it (CST-100, DreamChaser, Dragon, BO SPV)

    Ride up in one of those – market creation, saves money, etc…

  • Doug Lassiter

    William Mellberg wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 11:46 am
    “I cannot understand why it took you a while to “understand where Paul Spudis is coming from. His views have been well-known for years.
    And I suspect Dr. Spudis is fully aware of the fact that space colonization is not an established national priority. That, I imagine, is why he has been advocating the cause for so many years, just as others promote so-called “commercial” space.”

    Spudis is a leading lunar scientist, and as a result, an unabashed promoter of human space flight. Those qualities don’t obviously point to colonization as an ultimate goal. OK, maybe I’ve been a little slow on the uptake here about his motives! Re advocating for causes, “so-called commercial space” IS a national priority, so your point here isn’t clear.

    “That your vision (or others) might not be consistent with his does not mean Spudis is wrong. If our ultimate goal isn’t to explore and colonize space, then why bother sending humans out of Earth’s atmosphere at all? Just so “average” multi-millionaires can take joy rides into LEO? (Let’s be sure to tax them heavily when they do.)”

    First of all, I don’t believe I expressed my vision about this. You seem to be presuming things that were never said. In fact, I think colonization of space is sensible from a species protection perspective. It’s probably the best reason for human space flight. Unfortunately our government doesn’t seem to agree. Until our government can be convinced to expend money on that, developing the plans and architecture to colonize space is putting the cart before the horse. It isn’t wrong, but it’s a bit naive.

    You’ve sneakily added the word “explore” to the issue. Our goal most certainly is to “explore” space, though we’ve never really been able to define exactly what that word means. I was just talking about colonization. But it’s a good question why we bother sending humans outside the atmosphere at all. The Space Act doesn’t proscribe that as a priority for NASA. Many strongly suspect that the political rationale for it is one of “soft power”, with the Apollo program and the Cold War as heritage. Some consider it an exercise in “inspiration”, wherein the youth of this country use human space travel as an excuse to excel in STEM subjects. I respect the fact that you might equate human space travel with colonization, but others don’t.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Gary Miles wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
    “Perhaps you should actually ready some of Paul Spudis columns before making erroneous claim.

    From “One Small Step” to Settlement”

    Erroneous claim? What would that have been? I just said that Paul’s prime motive was space colonization. This very recent essay of his that you’re pointing to underscores that. That this prime motive is not one that is shared with established national goals is exactly what Greason is talking about. Greason is saying it should be a national goal, and he, like I, is acknowledging that it isn’t.

  • tom

    If you’re going to fly people from a launch site in the US your rocket will meet the human rating standard. Esp. if you want to fly astronauts. Just like NASA does/did. The 1st Orion flight will be unmanned in 2013 and follow up with a crewed mission. This gives time to make the modifications to Atlas V. It’s not that much. If Boeing, SN or anyone else fly’s on an EELV it will meet the human rating standards. Griffin’s plan was a good one. Commercial cargo now, then crew when proven. NASA leaves ISS to commercial and goes beyond LEO. Now NASA will compete with commercial crew and cargo.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Orion gives the US gov a spacecraft. EELV a way to fly crew to ISS before anyone else.

    The political reality as of today is that the MPCV with crew will only ride on the SLS, not EELV or anything else. Until you disconnect that pair, the MPCV will only be used for LEO tasks when nothing else is available. Why? Because the SLS is so expensive that it’s missions will be planned out years in advance, just like the Saturn V were, and you won’t have any “lying around” for casual use. So the MPCV/SLS will only be used for LEO duty as the law states, which is as a backup for commercial crew systems.

    But let’s talk about this notion that the only U.S. Government owned spacecraft is one that NASA spec’s and has built by an aerospace industry? That would be the same aerospace industry that is building the commercial crew vehicles.

    The U.S. Government owns lots of vehicles that they buy off the commercial marketplace, or that are modified commercial versions, so why not buy the CCDev spacecraft? Those will have been approved by NASA and the FAA for commercial service, and the government would have many options for how they could buy service – lease a vehicle, buy one, buy dedicated space per launch, or even have a duplicate system set up for their dedicated use.

    Keep in mind though that the MPCV is an exploration-class capsule, and the commercial crew vehicles are meant for the routine duty of moving people and cargo between Earth and LEO. It’s like comparing a Humvee to a Honda minivan. Each does their job better than the other, which in the case of commercial crew, it’s moving more people for less cost, and with a higher availability rate.

    You need Gov money and you will get little after 2013.

    Everything boils down to choice.

    Congress is supporting the ISS through at least 2020, and has asked NASA what it will take to extend it further. NASA has contracted with Russia for Soyuz flights through 2016, so the big question is what vehicle do we want to be riding to the ISS after 2016?

    Sure we can buy more Soyuz flights, but their prices will likely keep increasing from the $63M in 2016, so at some point it becomes more economical to “Buy American”. I think that time is now.

    But what do you think? Would you:

    A. Continue to buy Soyuz flights forever (i.e. continue the Russian monopoly).

    B. Wait until the MPCV/SLS is available, and spend $1B/flight to support the ISS with a capsule that is over-engineered for ISS lifeboat duty. Oh, and it will be one accident away from stranding our crew on the ISS, just like when Columbia crashed. And it can’t be used for Bigelow-type commercial space stations.

    C. Pursue the CCDev program and get two or more commercial crew systems going, which will provide a U.S. transportation system that is redundant, less costly than the MPCV, and can be used by commercial companies like Bigelow Aerospace to create other destinations in LEO.

    Choose wisely.

  • Robert G. Oler

    tom wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    ” So if we have a NASA s/c that can reach ISS on a proven EELV what do I need SpaceX for?” LOL if you can get the geniuses at NASA to put ORION or whatever it is called now on a “proven EELV” with no mods then you might have an argument…they wont you dont end of discussion RGO

  • vulture4

    NASA’s been working to replace the shuttle for 20 years. X-33 and a 1/3, NLS, OSP, etc..

    All NASA reusable launch vehicle programs were canceled under George W. Bush. The X-33 was canceled because it appeared unlikely it could reach orbit as a single stage vehicle. NASA failed to understand that its goal was to test technologies essential to RLV development in suborbital flight.

    X-34 was canceled because NASA arbitrarily decided to require a dual-string control system, which was absurd on an unmanned system, and then told Orbital Sciences to pay for it, which they could not. The X-34 has been reactivated and the two prototypes have been checked out. It may actually fly.

    DC-X was canceled because NASA lost interest and cut funding until it had insufficient personnel. A checkout error resulted in loss of the vehicle, and NASA would not pay for a replacement. Many of the X-34 team have joined Blue Origin.

    X-37 was abandoned by NASA but picked up by DOD and has launched twice. The first vehicle landed successfully, the first US spacecraft ever to land autonomously on a runway. The second is in orbit. The vehicle was ince it is classified, NASA will get little or nothing out of it.

    So in summary the RLVs were abandoned because the NASA leadership under O’Keefe and Griffin did not understand the meaning of the letter X in their designations. It means “experimental”.

    >>Orion gives the US gov a spacecraft. EELV a way to fly crew to ISS before anyone else.

    Orion is too heavy for either EELV and will not fly until at least 5 years after the Dragon and CST-100. Orion is of no practical value and will eventually be canceled because it is unaffordable and serves no useful purpose. Every dime spent on it now is wasted.

    So if we have a NASA s/c that can reach ISS on a proven EELV what do I need SpaceX for?

    >>NASA has no great mission (how’s new space going to get us into the solar system).

    Obviously no congress would provide the money to establish a Mars colony with the extremely expensive Constellation technology.

    >>The Govs not going now, you killed the customer. You need Gov money and you will get little after 2013.

    For human spaceflight to be sustainable, we need to be able to put people into orbit for what they are willing to pay.

  • Alright, to William Melberg!! PLEASE PEOPLE: Let’s elect a new President come November 2012! This “Hope & Change” jazz has just about reached its expiration date! What a airplane wreck has been made out of NASA during this administration’s tenure! Again I tell you: Heavy-Lift needed the new Lunar initiative, as its reason-to-be. Without it, you’ve got NO specific space-craft nor payload parameters. Imagine the Saturn 5 getting built with the CANCELLATION of Apollo by President Johnson or Nixon, circa 1966 or ’67, in some Alternate past history?!?! Yes, folks, that’s right! You’d have engineering design chaos, for a couple of years; until finally the political powers-that-be have it quietly eliminated in some future federal budget! [Hence, you’d have had NO Skylab sub-program at all, in the 1970s; also since presumably, the Saturn Ib would never have seemed justified for concurent construction, in that Alternate world.] Obama finished off NASA and American human spaceflight! I’ve told you all before: Commercial Space ONLY gets you access to Low Earth Orbit, and NOTHING MORE.

  • E.P. Grondine

    “The problem for SLS is not that no market has been identified, it is that no market exist. Period.

    Paul S and a lot of other people look on space, well human spaceflight anyway as an entitlement, they are entitled to spending there with little or no justification for it. SLS is an example of this.”

    Yes, RGO. A lot of people arguing about where to go and how to get there, who do not know where they are. The big “Why?’ question, in other words.

    But it looks to me like they’re not the only ones with perception problems.
    I just gave you an answer, defined a need and a market, and you conveniently walked on by.

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “Chris, it’s great to have enthusiasm, but the only thing that has held us back from returning to the Moon, or going anywhere beyond the Moon, is money. Solve that problem, and you’ll go back.”

    For me the only thing that held us back was Congress and NASA’s monopoly. If capitalism and competition would have been utilized it would have had a huge multiplier effect in how much additional capital would have been pumped into the space sector. Once Bigelow is up and running and there is domestic crew access it will be all over for NASA and trying to be the developer/operator of huge space projects like heavy lift.

    It is incredible how much the Nation has sacrificed on the alter of NASA management’s ego about being the only game in town and members of congress that have killed so much to protect their contributions and make work in their districts.

  • Vladislaw

    tom wrote:

    ” Orion gives the US gov a spacecraft. EELV a way to fly crew to ISS before anyone else. So if we have a NASA s/c that can reach ISS on a proven EELV what do I need SpaceX for?”

    The Orion is not reusable, how much is each unit going to cost? Over a billion a pop. Add in the 300 + million for a Delta IV and the taxpayer is going to be spending about 300 – 400 million per SEAT to the ISS. Musk is still on record for 20-30 million and Boeing has said it would be comparable to the soyuz. Also, if NASA screws up a launch there is no back up and once again the Nation is held hostage to a single string for human space access. Multiple commercial options will finally rid us of that paradigm and it will leave NASA more funds for actually building space based hardware.

  • Vladislaw

    tom wrote:

    “Now we have a commercial cargo capability in work, commercial crew that will be harmed by the politics of the last year and no mission for NASA for a few many years to come. Think about it, one day (within 10 years or less) ISS will end. ISS was designed for 15 years and some of her system had been build back in the early 90′s. What then?”

    Then NASA will simply lease a BA 330 for 88 million a year. Have SpaceX and Boeing haul Astronauts to it for 30 – 40 million a seat and with the exploration money and existing launch vehicles build a Nautilus X.

  • pathfinder_01

    “ If our ultimate goal isn’t to explore and colonize space, then why bother sending humans out of Earth’s atmosphere at all? Just so “average” multi-millionaires can take joy rides into LEO? (Let’s be sure to tax them heavily when they do.)”

    One way to colonize space is to via those millionaires. They can provide the first market/markets into space. It also allows people to do things in space with less government over site. Right now about the only way a company can do an experiment in space and esp. one that involves humans is through NASA. That is going to be limiting. With commercial crew it becomes possible to do so with less over site. Spaceflight is more than the moon. Imagine people working in space not for the government but for private companies.

    Anyway the way to leverage this would be provide trips to millionaires, they go home rave about it to their millionaire friends and more go. Even right now if that second ticket sells it may be possible to swing by the moon via commercial. Then perhaps a station at l1/L2 (where you could spend more time in space) and so on. It may take 200 years but we can start working towards a world where a University might sponsor a trip to the moon or to a NEO object to collect samples instead of the government having to provide everything.

  • Aggelos

    “The Orion is not reusable,”

    Why cant be?

    Cst-100 orion copy really will be..

    Without ares 1 mass problems,,with big sls ,,Orion can have land bags,,and be reusable..

    Why not?

    Dragon cst-100,,every capsule can be reusable,,now up to 10 times maybe?

    Its just politics..If nasa doesnt want to build anything she will not build anything..

  • @Chris Castro
    “Imagine the Saturn 5 getting built with the CANCELLATION of Apollo by President Johnson or Nixon, circa 1966 or ’67, in some Alternate past history?!?! “

    Cancelling Saturn V would not have made sense then because the end goal was different. That goal was to beat the Russians to the moon, with economically practical sustainability of trips to the moon on a long time scale not even an afterthought. Get one or a small number flights to the moon (the latter is better just to show it wasn’t a fluke of luck) and you’ve reached your goal.

    But Constellation supposedly had a different goal. It was supposed to give us the reasonably priced and economically practical work horse to allow us long term human access to the moon. Remember the idea of simplifying things and making them cheaper by using “off the shelf” shuttle technology that Griffin said would give us the moon “Simpler, safer, soon”? It failed on the reasonably priced and economically practical gauge. This was because the “simpler” paradigm was blown (five segments rather than 4, problems with using SME on Ares I and thus switching to a new version of J2, etc). You always act as if cost doesn’t matter. I don’t understand this delusion.

    BTW, you seem to think that the more exclamation points you put in your diatribes, the more convincing your arguments. In fact, it makes you look like a shrill arm waving fanatic whose religion has been profaned.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Aggelos,

    Becuase Orion has already been more-or-less finallised into the mostly-expendable Ares-I-launched verision. The reusable land-recovery variant was canned years ago and development has moved the vehicle so far down the ‘expendable’ route that you would have to nearly start over again to reverse directon now.

    It would take years and hundreds of millions of dollars that NASA doesn’t have to spare to re-engineer MPCV back into the land-recovery re-usable version. I don’t think that NASA cares to do this for a vehicle that I suspect will fly very infrequently.

  • Egad

    > This gives time to make the modifications to Atlas V…

    Speaking of that…

    http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_18503722

    United Launch Alliance, NASA to study future role for Atlas V rocket
    By Ann Schrader
    The Denver Post
    Posted: 07/19/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
    Updated: 07/19/2011 01:03:51 AM MDT

    United Launch Alliance and NASA have agreed to share information to determine whether the Centennial-based rocket company’s Atlas V can safely carry astronauts on commercial spacecraft.

    The unfunded agreement announced Monday will provide information for NASA’s commercial crew transportation program to stimulate private development of manned spacecraft.

    The work could lead to United Launch Alliance, a 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, meeting NASA requirements for taking humans to the international space station and other low-Earth-orbit destinations.

    If human certification is determined, an Atlas V-powered private spacecraft could be launched “by mid-decade,” said Ed Mango, program manager of NASA’s commercial crew development program.

    (snip)

    Last year, ULA was awarded $6.7 million by NASA — accompanied by its own $1.3 million investment — to develop a prototype system to detect emergencies.

    The system will warn of a launch mishap and give the crew the ability to escape.

  • vulture4

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote “I don’t think that NASA cares to do this for a vehicle that I suspect will fly very infrequently.”

    In my opinion very infrequently := zero.

    With both SpaceX and ULA ready to fly astronauts to ISS in about 3 years, and with no Constellation supporters willing to actually pay a dime in taxes, the SLS and Orion will be cancelled after another $5B or so is wasted.

    With over 80% of launch cost in vehicle fabrication and processing, there is no way human spaceflight can ever be sustainable with expendables. That was why we built the Shuttle. Obviously it cost more than expected, but it was only our first try and we learned a lot in the past 30 years. That knowledge is about to be thrown away forever.

  • If you’re going to fly people from a launch site in the US your rocket will meet the human rating standard.

    Only if it flies NASA employees. This is not a legal requirement for commercial flights.

    The X-33 was canceled because it appeared unlikely it could reach orbit as a single stage vehicle

    X-33 was never intended to reach orbit. It was a suborbital vehicle (SSTM — Single-Stage To Montana).

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ July 19th, 2011 at 10:12 am

    With over 80% of launch cost in vehicle fabrication and processing, there is no way human spaceflight can ever be sustainable with expendables.

    Definitely that formula needs to be flipped around, but the only entity that can really afford to do any serious work on RLV’s is being forced by Congress to build the largest disposable rocket in the world. Oh the irony.

    That knowledge is about to be thrown away forever.

    To me this is hyperbole. The technical knowledge base that the Shuttle relied upon is not being destroyed, and we have 30+ years of accumulated industry experience and knowledge that continues to live on. At best you could say that we’re losing immediate proficiency in applying heat-shield tiles to a winged orbiter, but who knows if we’ll ever need that skill again.

    The next generation of reusable launch vehicles will try to avoid a vast amount of the limitations that caused the Shuttle program to be so expensive, so I don’t think we’re losing much, if anything at all. Provide examples if you disagree.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Jeff –

    73P is still there.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Orion is too heavy for either EELV

    That’s not actually true, it could fly on both Heavies, only one of which has actually flown of course. And with refueling in LEO even the lunar Orion would work. There is some support for it in the current Orion design, although repositioning of some hardware has now physically blocked refueling capability, so some redesign would be needed. Or so a knowledgeable insider has said on another forum.

    and will not fly until at least 5 years after the Dragon and CST-100.

    That on the other hand may well be true.

  • Frank Glover

    “Just so “average” multi-millionaires can take joy rides into LEO? (Let’s be sure to tax them heavily when they do.)”

    Why would you do that? Tax anything heavily enough, people either find ‘black market’ ways of doing it (not yet practical in this case), or they just stop doing it.

    If I should ever have the means to send people int o space for ‘joyrides’ (go ahead, tell Disney, Six Flags and other amusement park operators that ‘joyrides’ have no value), but my operating costs are so high that the prices I must charge to be profitable can only be met by ‘millionaires,’ I seriously hope you are not a legislator that would tax me and my employees (who may not be terribly rich ourselves) out of business…

  • Frank Glover

    “I’ve told you all before: Commercial Space ONLY gets you access to Low Earth Orbit, and NOTHING MORE.”

    If at least two (there already seems to be one) people step up (through Space Adventures) with a willingness and ability to spend $150 million USD on it, the Russians will build the hardware to take them on a Circumlunar flight.

    The Russians. The Former Communists who haven’t yet gone beyond LEO, may do so the first time…for money. Am I the only one who sees irony in that?

    I’d prefer someone in the West was the first to provide such a service, but if it happens, they’ll take the hint…and assertions like yours will disappear.

    In any case, if Commercial Space ‘only’ gets me access to LEO…cool. That’s the place I want to assemble my stuff to go farther. Thanks for the comfortable, on-time ride, guys…

  • tom

    Orion is reusable. Est. 3-4 flights. So much so the plan is not to drain
    the potable water tanks between flights. The water vs. land landing was
    a trade on lift from Ares I. The bays still exist. It’s no big deal to add. Ares I could not fly Orion with full fuel
    tanks in the SM or provide mass for the airbags landing system (as an
    example). Both EELVs can lift Orion and one will.
    The plan is to fly twice a year with the potential to ramp up to 6
    flight a year with 18 months notice.

  • Coastal Ron

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 18th, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Crazy notion on my part, but just an idea – lets leave Delta IV not man-rated, and launch Orion on it unmanned.

    That’s a pretty good notion, and if the SLS gets cancelled, then I’d be quite happy to wee the MPCV fly on Delta IV Heavy. It could even fly on Falcon Heavy, or if ULA ever forecasted enough heavy-lift work, Atlas V Heavy.

    But as of now I don’t think Congress will let a justification for the SLS go away (i.e. MPCV flies missions exclusively on SLS).

    Ride up in one of those – market creation, saves money, etc…

    Yes, it’s too bad we don’t have enough business people in Congress that understand this concept. Who would have thought that Republicans would be pushing for Government-run solutions while the commercial marketplace is ignored.

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ July 19th, 2011 at 1:22 am

    For me the only thing that held us back was Congress and NASA’s monopoly. If capitalism and competition would have been utilized it would have had a huge multiplier effect in how much additional capital would have been pumped into the space sector.

    I think that’s a very important observation, and one that detractors of commercial efforts fail to understand.

    NASA has had an American monopoly on human spaceflight for the last 30 years, and the Constellation program was only going to extend that. Until we get a marketplace going for human travel to space, our ability to expand into space will be limited by NASA’s budget.

    And that budget looks like it’s going to shrink, not increase, over the near future, so I don’t know when “Moon First” or “Mars First” advocates think NASA will be getting the OK for the $100-200B it will take to go to their favorite destination. They are either living in denial, or in Cloud Cuckcoo Land.

  • VirgilSamms

    “The next generation of reusable launch vehicles will try to avoid a vast amount of the limitations that caused the Shuttle program to be so expensive, so I don’t think we’re losing much, if anything at all. Provide examples if you disagree.”

    The limitations that ruined the shuttle program were underfunding which caused NASA to go begging the air force for support. The air force requirements were the second nail in the coffin after the repeated funding cuts. The runway recovery was supposed to save money on ocean recovery but ate up much of the payload of a Saturn V class vehicle.
    Flying commercial satellites on a combined crew/cargo vehicle was the third nail. Combining these two functions in one vehicle is a cost cutting measure that ends up costing more.

    Finally, in the SRB’s and their 5 segment and 3rd generation composite wrapped designs, we have the most powerful boosters on earth. We paid for this technology dearly and it will not return with a snap of the fingers.

    The rest of the infrastructure is also not something that will be cheap to replace when it is realized that private space cannot accomplish BEO objectives.

  • tom

    If NASA does not have a spacecraft, no one gets to have a space program. Commercial or not. Congress demands it. That’s just the way it is.

  • Das Boese

    tom wrote @ July 19th, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Orion is reusable. Est. 3-4 flights. So much so the plan is not to drain
    the potable water tanks between flights. The water vs. land landing was
    a trade on lift from Ares I. The bays still exist. It’s no big deal to add.

    Would you mind providing a source for that?
    Even if it’s true, Orion is at best partially reusable, since the service module is discarded.

    As for the dirt landing capability, I sincerely doubt that there is any room at all in an already tight budget and schedule for such shenanigans.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ July 19th, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    The limitations that ruined the shuttle program were underfunding which caused NASA to go begging the air force for support. The air force requirements were the second nail in the coffin after the repeated funding cuts.

    You’re talking about the reasons for the design choices, but not the design choices themselves.

    For instance, the current Shuttle SRB’s are not the type of reusability that we should be trying for, since they have to be completely torn down after every flight and are essentially rebuilt new. I’m not even sure rebuilding them saves any money, but since no one ever did a detailed cost analysis of the program from the inside, we’ll never know.

    A better design could be a flyback booster that can be restacked and refueled without a complete teardown between flights. Or a Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) that consists of two horizontal landing vehicles that only need consumables topped off between flights.

    We need to be looking at better ways to get to orbit, and the most telling factor will be cost, since there is no incentive within Congress to spend lavishly on any space program, and the commercial aerospace industry won’t spend heavily until there is a clearly developed market for something.

  • Finally, in the SRB’s and their 5 segment and 3rd generation composite wrapped designs, we have the most powerful boosters on earth.

    What morons (not to imply that you are one, but if you infer that, who am I to complain?) don’t understand is that power is not the primary criterion. Cost and effectiveness is. But children (and Tim the Tool Man) understand nothing but “power.”

  • Vladislaw

    Das Boese wrote:

    “tom wrote @ July 19th, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Orion is reusable. Est. 3-4 flights. So much so the plan is not to drain
    the potable water tanks between flights. The water vs. land landing was
    a trade on lift from Ares I. The bays still exist. It’s no big deal to add.

    Would you mind providing a source for that?”

    I was wondering the same thing, the last I saw was LM saying it would not be reused when the land landing option was taken off the table. I looked last night and couldn’t find the latest on what the new configuration is going to be.

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ July 20th, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    I was wondering the same thing, the last I saw was LM saying it would not be reused when the land landing option was taken off the table.

    I’ve refrained from commenting either way since I haven’t been able to verify whether it will be reusable. I look forward to any links that provide clarification.

    But if the MPCV is not reusable, then the MPCV/SLS stack is going to be really expensive, and likely each flight will be committed many years in advance. Each flight will be so expensive that they will likely qualify for their own budget line-item numbers.

    In contrast, commercial crew vehicles, since they are set up for generic passengers going to a routine destination, will be able to change their dates or manifest at almost the last moment.

  • pathfinder_01

    Last I saw not reusable and the water tank is in the service module. They think they can pull parts of it (like they did for Soyuz and Apollo) but that is that.

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “But if the MPCV is not reusable, then the MPCV/SLS stack is going to be really expensive, and likely each flight will be committed many years in advance. Each flight will be so expensive that they will likely qualify for their own budget line-item numbers.”

    Then it will be just like the good ole’ days. Each launch will be an extravaganza gala event. As we watch the huge multi billion dollar phallic symbol of American might launch and the only thing that comes back is a tiny little capsule and the heros of NASA get out of the capsule.

    Take THAT you rest of the world.

  • tom

    5 water tanks in the SM, 2 in the CM. The SM tanks support (primarily) ATCS and EVA cooling. But you can draw water from the SM to the CM tanks. I went and checked the conops to make sure. I hope this clears up the point.

  • Matt Wiser

    Ron, as always, your arguments are well thought out (and believe me, I’ve disagreed with you a lot more than I’ve agreed), but here’s something you keep mentioning when it comes to EELV v. Heavy-Lift: and that’s “empty”..see the following..

    Fuel depots fit on existing launchers.

    Inflatable habits fit on existing launchers.

    Lunar landers launched empty fit on existing launchers.

    Earth Departure Stages launched empty fit on existing launchers.

    What do we need a new HLV for?

    Here’s the reply:

    You are assuming that on-orbit refueling will work out. Would on-orbit refueling be a good thing to have? Certainly. But I wouldn’t bet the whole program on that. While the Russians have done it on a small scale (Progress, I believe) and the AF has done it with a couple of their satellites under contract, it hasn’t been done on a large scale: hence the NASA Request for Proposals for a technology demonstrator in 2014. If it works,fine. If not, you’re back to heavy-lift. (which, btw, The Augustine Commission says would be a good thing to have-the Ares V Light was their preferred option)

    I’d mix both in-space refueling AND Heavy-Lift. Because that means you can lift heavier stuff than even an EELV can haul, refuel, and then you’re on your way. For a Mars landing, that means you can send the big stuff on ahead-habitats, ISRU modules, Crew rovers, etc. Again, if it works, nice to have-it makes the commercial space fanboys happy, but if it doesn’t….we’re back to heavy-lift for BEO.

    Oler: Exploration is NOT just robots. It’s also done with people. No difference whether it’s in space or undersea. The robots go where people can’t. But where you do have the ability to send people, DO IT.

    As for “plan”, well, in case you haven’t noticed, that’s what Congress wants. A specific outline for planned human exploration. Just a basic outline of destinations, mission goals, and so on. The how and when will come later. Said in before in previous threads, but I’ll say it again: No Buck Rogers, NO BUCKS. NASA is beholden to Congress. Or does that fact get in the way?

  • pathfinder_01

    “You are assuming that on-orbit refueling will work out. will work out. Would on-orbit refueling be a good thing to have? Certainly. But I wouldn’t bet the whole program on that. While the Russians have done it on a small scale (Progress, I believe) and the AF has done it with a couple of their satellites under contract, it hasn’t been done on a large scale: hence the NASA Request for Proposals for a technology demonstrator in 2014. If it works,fine. If not, you’re back to heavy-lift. (which, btw, The Augustine Commission says would be a good thing to have-the Ares V Light was their preferred option) ‘

    Which is why tech development and holding the HLV decision till a later date makes sense. We don’t need an Apollo redo we need a Gemini. if redvous/docking,fuel cells, and space walks had failed Apollo would have been a very different program. Without docking LOR does not work and you would need a bigger rocket than the Saturn V. If you can’t spacewalk then you will need a lander with a robot arm and if fuel cells had failed the Apollo CM would mass more.

    “I’d mix both in-space refueling AND Heavy-Lift. Because that means you can lift heavier stuff than even an EELV can haul, refuel, and then you’re on your way. For a Mars landing, that means you can send the big stuff on ahead-habitats, ISRU modules, Crew rovers, etc. Again, if it works, nice to have-it makes the commercial space fanboys happy, but if it doesn’t….we’re back to heavy-lift for BEO. “
    However you can do refueling with EELV class rockets and do so now without waiting for the HLV. An HLV that is not needed is a waste of money and a HLV built before it is needed will simply drain funding from other programs.

    “As for “plan”, well, in case you haven’t noticed, that’s what Congress wants. A specific outline for planned human exploration. Just a basic outline of destinations, mission goals, and so on. The how and when will come later. Said in before in previous threads, but I’ll say it again: No Buck Rogers, NO BUCKS. NASA is beholden to Congress. Or does that fact get in the way?”

    There is or was one called flexible path. A NEO by 2025 and Mars orbit by 2030. In addition it called for possible missions to Larine points, perhaps a lunar shakedown cruise and so on. NASA may be beholden to Congress, but Congress is not giving NASA enough funding to do BEO exploration with government build HLV. You can give me $1000 a year but if you give me a goal of flying to some far off place with a aircraft that I must design and build it is not gonna happen anytime soon

    Anyway what will happen is that the commercial companies will form a new political force to replace the current one. Texas, Florida, California, Georgia all have new space companies and job that they will protect once the shuttle workforce disappear. Mississippi still tests engines for Orbital and others. The only reason why they threw the new space (or are attempting to) is because there are more shuttle jobs than new space ones, but once that changes trust me the Senators from Texas and other states will be in new space’s pocket.

  • pathfinder_01

    Anyway as it stands now:

    We have Bigloew developing space station modules….they could be used as Habs on a BEO mission.

    We have Space X developing both FH and Dragon. Both useful BEO wise.
    We have commercial Cargo (which could be used to equip a BEO craft) about to come online.

    We have commercial crew (which could be used to man it).
    Now if you wanted to do some exploration sans SLS sized HLV here is one possible way.

    If NASA or ULA focuses on an upper stage instead of trying to build a HLV plus maybe an upper stage we could get a lot further. A 20-50MT upper stage that is space storable and perhaps loft able by multiple rockets could easily push a Hab, or Capsules, or landers to a lagraine point. While it would be expensive, it would be cheaper than SLS. A Delta Phase I would be a great complement to Atlas.

    Likewise SEP could be great for lunar or mars cargo or even a manned NEO mission. This would greatly reduce the mass of the craft needed.

    Heck even today two launches could Propel Orion to an L point.

  • You are assuming that on-orbit refueling will work out.

    There is absolutely no sane reason to assume otherwise. And if it doesn’t “work out,” we will never become a serious spacefaring nation.

  • VirgilSamms

    “There is absolutely no sane reason to assume otherwise. And if it doesn’t “work out,” we will never become a serious spacefaring nation.”

    Not according to what industry has to say about handling liquid hydrogen.
    Storing it is hard enough and probably not practical but transfer? When the entire fuel system of the vehicle being fueled has to be pre-cooled with helium? When the very act of liquifying the boil off causes exothermic forms to be introduced into the system? When it has never been done for these reasons and there is no current programs funded to even address the issues?

    You are not right and lose all credibility when you post such nonsense.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ July 21st, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Not according to what industry has to say about handling liquid hydrogen.

    When you say “industry”, you mean like United Launch Alliance?

    They say it can be done, and that Hydrogen loses in space are about equal to the amount of fuel needed for station keeping (~1%/year), so they don’t see an issue. You can read about it (see their website) as part of their lunar exploration plan called “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″.

    Since ULA has experience with Hydrogen fueled spacecraft, I tend to believe them over you.

    When the entire fuel system of the vehicle being fueled has to be pre-cooled with helium?” Um, OK, well then just carry Helium with you.

    But all we’re talking about here are engineering challenges, which is more a matter of effort than anything else. We haven’t had to deal with it yet, which is why we need to work on the solutions.

    But the main issue we’re talking about is managing heat, and there are three types of heat transfer that generally exist: radiation, convection, and conduction. I don’t see any huge stumbling blocks that time and money won’t solve, which is the purpose of having NASA start working on it as soon as possible.

    And as others have pointed out, if we can’t routinely transfer fuel in space we’re not going anywhere anyways, no matter how big a rocket we build.

    You are not right and lose all credibility when you post such nonsense.

    Uh huh. What area of expertise did you say you specialize in?

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ July 20th, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    Hi Matt. I think Pathfinder and Rand already covered most of what I would have said, so I won’t repeat. The one point I do want go over is this:

    which, btw, The Augustine Commission says would be a good thing to have-the Ares V Light was their preferred option

    The Augustine Commission never said when or under what conditions that a larger HLV would be needed, and the basic argument against the SLS is that there is no demonstrated need for it at this time, or in the foreseeable future (Congressional budget-wise future).

    You could allay our fears by just pointing out where in the budget we’re going to be able to fund the missions that need to get designed and built to use the SLS, and the funds for the building and operating the SLS itself.

    Should be simple for such a HLV proponent as yourself.

    Well?

    Until you can show that, why should anyone think the SLS (or any new HLV) would be necessary to have operational by the Congressionally mandated 2016 date?

  • Martijn Meijering

    Not according to what industry has to say about handling liquid hydrogen.

    It’s hard, it’s not impossible. And liquid hydrogen is not essential to manned spaceflight or exploration whatever people may say. Very useful, certainly, but not essential. If it were proven tomorrow that liquid hydrogen depots will never work, then propellant transfer and ultimately RLVs would still be the right approach. And an HLV would still be the dead-end it’s always been.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Also: don’t forget that even if you insist on using liquid hydrogen, a 6:1 O/F ratio makes transfer of just the oxidiser very useful already. The oxidiser used would probably be LOX as even skeptics consider it likely LOX transfer and storage in orbit would work, but peroxide or NTO could work too if even LOX turned out to be problematic.

  • Martijn Meijering

    When the entire fuel system of the vehicle being fueled has to be pre-cooled with helium?

    You’re talking about ground handling.

    When the very act of liquifying the boil off causes exothermic forms to be introduced into the system?

    What on Earth does that sentence mean?

    When it has never been done for these reasons and there is no current programs funded to even address the issues?

    You must not have heard of CRYOTE.

  • Gary Miles

    @Doug Lassiter

    If you read Paul’s article, then you would know that Dr. Spudis recognized that colonization is not a national goal and he specifically stated that colonization should not be a national goal of the US government. Paul believes that the US should pursue a more limited objective of developing a space infrastructure utilizing lunar resources to do so.

  • Matt Wiser

    Ron, I said it before and I’ll repeat: if we can find the money to fight two wars at the same time (two and a half if you count Libya), then we can find the money to do what NASA can do with that kind of budget: lunar return in years, not a decade and a half, L-points and NEO with hab modules (often), technology R&D for extended misions of up to three years duration (read: Mars), and then get ready for that series of missions: Mars flyby, orbit/Moons (possibly with sample return), and then the big one: Mars proper. Not with cute robots as Oler keeps shreiking about, but with boots on the ground.

    We’ll need heavy-lift at some point, and it might as well be now. Then payloads can be designed around it. And Ron, just because the HLV is the only thing in the budget now, that doesn’t mean that things like hab modules, departure stage, etc. won’t show up down the road: they will, as the budget picture improves, as it surely will.

    And Oler: since when is a exploration outline (where we’ll be going, tentative dates for planning purposes, mission goals, and so on) “Soviet-style socialism?” That’s called advance planning, not a command economy.

  • We’ll need heavy-lift at some point, and it might as well be now.

    Even if true, this is logically absurd. If it is very expensive, and we don’t need it now, but there are other things that we do need now, then it makes sense to wait until we need it. Do you not understand the concept of limited resources and time value of money?

  • just because the HLV is the only thing in the budget now, that doesn’t mean that things like hab modules, departure stage, etc. won’t show up down the road: they will, as the budget picture improves, as it surely will.

    Let me elaborate. Tell me where I’m going wrong, here. We can’t get to the moon without a lander. We can’t get to the moon without a lunar insertion stage. We can get to the moon without a heavy lifter, if we’re willing to either design the stage to accept and store propellant on orbit, or put up a separate propellant depot. Given that we have finite resources, if one wanted to get to the moon as quickly as possible using those resources, and one was rational, one would want to focus on those elements that are essential to get to the moon, and put off those things that are not so. This is just basic critical path analysis.

    When someone says that they want the latter now, even though it won’t be needed until “at some point,” with the hope (and hope is not a plan) that the other things will somehow magically “show up down the road,” one is demonstrating that the priority is not in fact sending people beyond earth orbit, or going to the moon, but just building cool giant rockets.

  • Vladislaw

    “I want to do Apollo again”

  • Martijn Meijering

    if we’re willing to either design the stage to accept and store propellant on orbit, or put up a separate propellant depot.

    There’s at least one more option, one that is halfway between what was proposed for ELA and your refuelable stage, namely a spacecraft that can accept and store propellant in orbit. That’s a considerably easier challenge and observing that is more basic critical path analysis. In other words, neither a stage that can accept and store propellant in orbit nor a depot is essential. Highly desirable, yes, and that makes it very different from an HLV which would even be harmful, but still not essential or anywhere close to it

    All kinds of hybrids between the various options are possible too. If you are satisfied with Apollo-size lander, you could even dispense with the need for fueling the spacecraft in orbit, but that precludes reuse (then again, that will be a wash economically a first) and more importantly it foregoes the opportunity to create a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market, which would be kind of the point of the whole exercise.

  • Martijn Meijering

    one is demonstrating that the priority is not in fact sending people beyond earth orbit, or going to the moon, but just building cool giant rockets

    Or something that correlates with it, such as jobs in one’s local area, “justification” for big government projects, government owned launchers, continuity with Shuttle technology, preservation of Shuttle jobs, hero worship of Team NASA.

  • vulture4

    vulture4 wrote: “That knowledge is about to be thrown away forever.”

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 19th, 2011 at 11:51 am “To me this is hyperbole. The technical knowledge base that the Shuttle relied upon is not being destroyed, and we have 30+ years of accumulated industry experience and knowledge that continues to live on. At best you could say that we’re losing immediate proficiency in applying heat-shield tiles to a winged orbiter, but who knows if we’ll ever need that skill again.”

    Vulture 4 replies: I felt that way too until I had the chance to work with them. The question isn’t “how do you glue on a tile”, its “how do we find ways to provide heat shielding that will reduce the cost of maintenance? When can we use Nomex? FRSI? Ceramics? high temp metals? How do we compare the cost of the seamstresses who sew the flexible blankets with the cost of maintaining tile? If we develop something new, what will help us most? This kind of understanding comes only from trying every possibility, and seeing problems and mistakes, and fixing them with your own hands. There are an infinite number of decisions, every design concept and material has to be selected, not just in TPS but in SSME, Aft, Midbody, Crew Module, RCS, Booster, Parachutes, ET, wiring, structure, fluids, fuels, pad and infrasructure, and hundreds of other tasks. The SLS and Orion look simpler to someone who just handles paper. They aren’t, because the problem of cost is actually more difficult to overcome.

    I do not know of anyone on the NASA side who has anything like this level of understanding, they believe the solutions to these problems are obvious, and when money is short the contractors all get fired. That’s why we keep having failures in both hardware and management.

    Nor will the knowledge live on, because no meaningful attempt is being made to preserve it, even when an hour spent interviewing each departing employee might save us months or year, or possibly lives. The statistics that are being collected convey few insights. The designs do not convey the reasoning that led to them. The solutions, like the revelations of Sherlock Holmes, do not convey the skill that is needed to solve the problems. As things stand, in many of these areas we will have to start over.

  • Vladislaw

    With the ease of information collection, and storeage, the idea why the web can not contain a lot of this information is beyond me. Technical forums, blogs, etc. Everyone one of those technicians can be accessed at the speed of light via the web. It is not the 1960’s with rooms of filing cabinets that have to be searched by eye and hand. I highly doubt we will lose that much.

  • vulture4

    I am proposing a sort of “social networking” website for the departing personnel in an attempt to collect some of this information and preserve their insights and ideas. Keep in mind that the techs don’t usually have their own PCs at work and certainly don’t have the time to blog, so we have to persuade them to do it at home on their own time, when they also need to be looking for jobs.

  • The biggest unfueled component of the Apollo spacecraft (excluding the Saturn third stage) was the Service module at about 6110kg. So I guess if refueling from a depot is feasible (and I’m sure it is), and we are able to assemble bits in orbit (which is proven with the ISS) I don’t see a NEED for even 10 tonnes launch capacity, the fueled Service Module weighed 25 tonnes, so something like Apollo doesn’t even need orbital refueling with current launch vehicles.
    OK, we’d want to do something more that just Apollo Repeated, but even then, I can’t envisage how anyone could possibly argue a need for individual components weighing even 25 tonnes.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ July 21st, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    if we can find the money to fight two wars at the same time…, then we can find the money to do what NASA can do with that kind of budget

    We couldn’t “afford” to fight two wars at the same time, we borrowed money during that time to fill in the shortfall in the entire budget. Our political leaders chose to go further in debt to accomplish their goals overseas.

    But you’re assuming (like others) that it’s a binary choice, in that we either fight 2.5 wars or we go to the Moon in a big way. That’s not reality.

    As it’s always been, going back to the Moon is a money issue and not a technical one. There is a reason that every President and Congress after Apollo and up until Bush 43 didn’t want to go back – because there is not enough reason to go back. Even Bush 43 didn’t use any of his political capital to keep the Constellation funding levels up, so it was not a priority for him either.

    Oh sure it’s interesting going to the Moon, and some day we may be able to keep people living there full-time like we do in the Antarctic. But it’s not a national priority.

    Regarding the SLS, if Congress really wanted it ready by 2016 for missions of any type, then we’d already be far behind in building the payloads. Keep in mind that the SLS requires far larger SLS-sized payloads to justify it’s need, and those payloads can’t be manufactured with the current 5m wide ISS tooling, so new factories, transportation systems (8m payloads can’t go by air or through tunnels), tooling, test equipment and everything else need to be designed and built before the payloads can be made ready for the SLS. And we don’t know what the mission even is.

    Based on my manufacturing background, my conservative guess on how long it will take from designating a destination and goal, to having a SLS-sized mission payload ready to launch is at least 10 years. Congress wants the SLS in 4 years, so what’s it supposed to do for 5+ years?

    As others have pointed out, you can either build the largest rocket in the world, or you can use that money to build exploration payloads that fit on existing rockets. Choose one.

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ July 22nd, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    The question isn’t “how do you glue on a tile”, its “how do we find ways to provide heat shielding that will reduce the cost of maintenance?

    I understand your point, and you provided good detail to support it.

    I guess my view is that we couldn’t afford to keep the Shuttle going, and there was no need for it anyways. That being the case, keeping people around to retain 30+ year old technology knowledge by funding more Shuttle flights seems like overkill. Just create a “Dept. of Knowledge Retention” and hire them.

    But you’re also assuming that we’ll need HRSI tiles or Nomex blankets sometime soon, and I just don’t see when or where we will. Certainly not in the next decade, since the new vehicles that we’re building don’t use them, or the companies have already hired who they need.

    I’ve been around the aerospace and defense industries long enough to have experience quite a few boom and bust cycles, and for the Shuttle people it’s a bust, but for other segments of the aerospace industry it’s a boom. I think the market will sort it out, like it always does, but it won’t feel fair to some.

  • Matt Wiser

    Rand, when Shuttle was approved back in ’72, there was no mention of a Sapce Telescope, a space station, Spacelab, etc. Just build shuttle. Everything else came later. With HLV, they’ll build and fly it to BEO for 1-2 week missions, then as funding becomes available, then the hab modules, lander, etc. come along. Just as that did in the Shuttle program.

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ July 22nd, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    I am proposing a sort of “social networking” website for the departing personnel in an attempt to collect some of this information and preserve their insights and ideas.

    This is a good idea. The challenge will be in what service(s) you use.

    For instance, LinkedIn Answers would be a good choice for the professional level people, since the active professionals are likely already on LinkedIn.

    For the non-professionals, a quick search found this list on Wikipedia:

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

    For such a small population of people, it’s better to use existing services, but you may have to use more than one to capture a large enough segment of the relevant population.

    Hope that helps.

  • Martijn Meijering

    But you’re also assuming that we’ll need HRSI tiles or Nomex blankets sometime soon, and I just don’t see when or where we will. Certainly not in the next decade, since the new vehicles that we’re building don’t use them, or the companies have already hired who they need.

    Last year Shuttle-derived TPS was still being considered for Dream Chaser I think. I don’t know if they’ve made a decision yet.

  • Rand, when Shuttle was approved back in ’72, there was no mention of a Sapce Telescope, a space station, Spacelab, etc. Just build shuttle. Everything else came later. With HLV, they’ll build and fly it to BEO for 1-2 week missions, then as funding becomes available, then the hab modules, lander, etc. come along. Just as that did in the Shuttle program.

    I see that you’re completely ignoring my point, and that you have no desire to get back to the moon. You just want to build a big rocket.

  • pathfinder_01

    Actually in 1972 the shuttle was sold on the promise that it and a space station would be built. The space station was canceled under Carter(due to cost over runs) and only the shuttle was built. Hubble was likewise funded in the 1970ies and should have been launched in 1983 not 1990. Gallio was funded and built in the 70ies and should have been launched in 1982. Spacelab was funded and built in the 1970ies(1973 for memorandum of understanding and 1974 for construction). In addition the shuttle was to carry commercial satalights(it did so until 1986). The shuttle had payloads before it was built.

  • pathfinder_01

    In short payloads for the shuttle were developed cocurrently just like Apollo.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ July 22nd, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Rand, when Shuttle was approved back in ’72, there was no mention of a Sapce Telescope, a space station, Spacelab, etc. Just build shuttle.

    That may be true in 1972, but by the mid-70’s things were being planned for the Shuttle.

    In 1978 the Hubble Telescope was approved and the target date for Shuttle launch was 1983.

    On the last Shuttle test flight (#4 in June 1982) they launched a DoD satellite, and commercial comsats later that year, so payloads had been in process for some time.

    There is no such backlog of payloads that I’m aware of that is being considered for funding for the SLS. Certainly none are funded right now to meet a launch date of 2017 or whenever Congress wants the SLS flying.

    It’s stuff like that that leads many of us to believe that the SLS is being pushed as a jobs program, not for any particular payload need.

    And still the SLS is the cart before the horse, because other than vague claims, no one has specifically identified payloads and programs that have been reviewed for modular assembly instead of single pieces (existing launchers vs SLS), so Congress has short-circuited the design process, not helped it.

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>