There’s a bit of a lull in space policy now, after the shuttle has landed and with Congress and the administration preoccupied with much bigger, pressing issues. A few items of interest:
In the post-shuttle era, NASA administrator Charles Bolden is optimistic, reiterating that the end of the shuttle doesn’t mean the end of NASA human spaceflight. “fact, we are recommitting ourselves to human spaceflight and taking the necessary — and difficult — steps to maintain American pre-eminence. Our leadership will continue because we have laid this foundation for success,” he says in an Orlando Sentinel op-ed. “There’s no doubt that this transition period at NASA is a challenge. But we have always risen to meet such challenges, just as we did during the transition from the Apollo program to shuttle.”
While Bolden is optimistic, Johnson Space Center director Mike Coats is less so. “It’s a tough time right now. We’re going to be in a period where we can’t put humans into orbit for the first time in 50 years,” he tells Houston’s KHOU-TV. (As previously noted, there have been previous gaps in NASA’s ability to launch humans into orbit.) Coats said that probable budget cuts will make it unlikely that NASA will be able to meet the goal in last year’s authorization act of fielding the MPCV spacecraft and SLS launcher by 2016. “Given the deficit situation, and the emphasis right now on reducing government, almost across the board, especially discretionary programs, I don’t think that we’re going to have the funding that’s going to enable us to meet those dates,” he said.
On another topic of long-running interest, export control reform, an administration official said this week that many of the White House’s proposed reforms can be enacted without Congressional approval. Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, said Monday that he believes “around 80 percent” of its proposed reforms can be done through “executive authority”, The Hill reports. Last year the administration put forward a plan featuring what’s been dubbed the “four singles” that would create a single export control list with multiple tiers, a single licensing agency, a single enforcement agency, and a single IT system. While the article doesn’t explicitly state it, one area that likely falls into the 20 percent that would require congressional approval is the area of greatest interest to the space industry: the potential move of commercial satellites and related components off the US Munitions List (USML); those components were put on the USML by Congress in the late 1990s.
Jeff Foust quotes:
While Bolden is optimistic, Johnson Space Center director Mike Coats is less so. “It’s a tough time right now. We’re going to be in a period where we can’t put humans into orbit for the first time in 50 years,†he tells Houston’s KHOU-TV. (As previously noted, there have been previous gaps in NASA’s ability to launch humans into orbit.)
Is there anyone in Houston capable of telling the truth?!
Earlier this week here in the Space Coast we had a group of tourists who said they worked at JSC. They claimed that Obama denied Houston an orbiter for political reasons, despite Houston submitting “the low bid.” !!!
Anyone paying attention knows it wasn’t a “low bid” process.
They also claimed that Obama sent “their” orbiter to San Diego! Even though no orbiter is going to San Diego.
And if you haven’t seen it, this is the web site for Houston’s official campaign to get an orbiter:
http://www.bringtheshuttlehome.com/
Click on “About the Mission” and you’ll see their proposal. It’s pathetic.
Nowhere does it say how they’re going to pay for an orbiter museum, other than holding “a capital campaign.”
I don’t think that we’re going to have the funding that’s going to enable us to meet those dates
NASA’s funding is going to be reduced. The internal debate should be about which activities to transfer to other agencies or cancel outright. If HSF is a priority, reduced overall funding should not matter.
The Tea Party cometh!
Many people in NASA (particularly at JSC) are living in an alternate reality.
They firmly believe that the only reason we aren’t landing on Mars is that the Obama administration is conspiring against them with the express goal of killing the space program, because Obama knows they are all Republicans and has it in for them. The possibility does not even occur to them that it might have been a poor decision, in an era of tax cuts, to scrap the Shuttle and ISS and thirty years of painful progress, and bet everything on a huge new program to re-enact Apollo on steroids.
The Era of Soyuz has begun!
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-declares-era-soyuz-shuttle-133921047.html
Somtimes in jest you can find small nuggets of truth.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ussr-wins-space-race-as-us-shuts-down-shuttle-prog,21007/
“The Tea Party cometh!”
The Tea Party wants to terminate SLS and MPCV before any other NASA program.
http://www.teainspace.com/tea-party-in-space-action-alert-10-july-2011/#more-1616
FWIW…
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Is there anyone in Houston capable of telling the truth?!” Well not if one is a local pol…well Ron Paul more or less says what he really thinks and most of the time that is close to reality.
What the people you were referencing have been hearing (sort of not even Olson says that there is an orbiter going to San Diego) is people like Olson trying to dodge any blame for the current reality by blaming Obama. And sadly Obama is almost feckless in dealing with the political forces surrounding him.
But the sad reality for the people who you mention is that in reality the GOP budgets are going to cut NASA and cut it hard. There is little support even in TX 22 for things like crewed lunar programs or trips to Mars or asteroids or anything really.
Times are bad economically and they are going to get worse…we are going in my view to be lucky to hold on to ISS and the commercial contracts with it. The rest is simply toast.
Robert G. Oler
The Era of Soyuz has begun!
I posted this link on this forum last week. Atlantis was not on the ground one hour before our Russian partners were doing a victory dance.
The Tea Party wants to terminate SLS and MPCV before any other NASA program.
Please don’t confuse a newspace astroturf website with the Tea Party. It is just a newspace attempt to find any coattails to replace Obama’s. They are like a tick looking for a new host.
More examples of just how irrelevant the US space program is becomming without US HSF.
“Russia and its partners plan to plunge the International Space Station (ISS) into the ocean at the end of its life cycle after 2020 so as not to leave space junk, the space agency said on Wednesday.”
Russia and it’s partners?!. Some of this can be chalked up to the usual Russain arrogance but I expect this mindset to expand if US HSF capabilities either slip further in the future or fail to materialize altogether.
Full artical here:
http://news.discovery.com/space/space-station-end-ocean-110727.html
“he Tea Party wants to terminate SLS and MPCV before any other NASA program.”
Nope. A group calling itself “Tea Party in Space” wants to do that. There have been Tea Party protests against Obama’s space policy and the cancellation of Constellation.
Stop making things up.
“Please don’t confuse a newspace astroturf website with the Tea Party.”
Then where is the Tea Party civil space policy platform or website?
Reference? Link?
Don’t make stuff up.
amightywind wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 8:02 am
“NASA’s funding is going to be reduced. The internal debate should be about which activities to transfer to other agencies or cancel outright.”
I agree that NASA’s funding will be reduced. But if it’s going to be reduced by transferring activities to other agencies, then I guess those other agencies are going to get a budget bump to do them? The point being that transferring activities to other agencies isn’t a credible way to save money. It’s a way to avoid making hard decisions. Moving the deck chairs on the Titanic? This “transfer-to-other-agencies” business is astonishingly dumb in the context of federal budget minimization. No, I don’t think these other agencies can do the work more efficiently than NASA can. They’ll just outsource the job to the same people.
The way one saves money is by deciding not to do activities, not by transferring responsibility for them. So the debate (which is actually likely to be very external, that is, in Congress) has to be about what activities to cancel outright.
“The internal debate should be about which activities to transfer to other agencies or cancel outright.”
The internal debate should be about a fully competitive, fixed price, milestone based, bid for HLV by the private sector and to cancel the SLS and MPCV.
It seems to me that no one is talking about the “elephant in the room…” Namely, has anyone looked at what a US Govt default will mean to purely discretionary spending, if it occurs in the next week or so?
In my view, payments on the existing debt would probably come first from limited funds, then Defense, then existing obligations such as Social Security and Medicare, then DHS and related, etc., etc… It seems to me that NASA may not be high on such a list. Are we headed for 1995-1996 class shutdown “on steroids” for the space program…?
(BTW: The metaphor that keeps coming to mind is that of the “game of chicken” in the movie Rebel Without a Cause… I am worried that our collective sleeve is caught on the door handle and we can’t get loose.)
Anyway, is anyone looking at this as we head toward the cliff…? IMO it seems like this would be a good topic for “SpacePolitics.com”, or somebody.
There have been Tea Party protests against Obama’s space policy and the cancellation of Constellation.
Only where there’s local pork involved.
There have been Tea Party protests against Obama’s space policy and the cancellation of Constellation.
Where? Tea Party endorsed politicians in communities with Constellation interests do not count. These people are merely earpublicans and porkacrats.
MrEarl wrote:
“Russia and its partners plan to plunge the International Space Station (ISS) into the ocean at the end of its life cycle after 2020 so as not to leave space junk, the space agency said on Wednesday.â€
A deputy bureaucrat in Roscosmos does not set policy.
The policy is that the fifteen nations who jointly operate the ISS are researching whether it’s feasible to extend operations until 2028.
Some Russians are nervous because they know commercial crew will start soon and their days of gouging us for flights will be over. A couple months back, some Russian bureaucrat said they wouldn’t allow SpaceX to dock at the ISS. Well, NASA plans to do just that in December. Obviously the Russian bureaucrat was wrong then too.
Wonder if SpaceX will do their public stock offering before their November (or more likely December) launch. Given SLS slippage they and Orbital will busy for this entire decade.
Mark Whittington wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 11:33 am
“. There have been Tea Party protests against Obama’s space policy and the cancellation of Constellation.”
only when there is local pork involved…there has been zero opposition to cancelling Constellation by even say Michelle BAchmann who is running for the tea party label as fast as her heels will carry her (and in my view becoming an excellent candidate, not that I would vote for her).
Not even in Olson’s promised policy (which you love unwritten) does he mention as one of the bullet points restarting Cx…
The reality is that by Sept all the shuttle derivative will be to expensive to have…all the folks will be gone…another government bureaucracy killed off…RGO
Wonder if SpaceX will do their public stock offering before their November (or more likely December) launch.
It won’t happen before next year.
Given SLS slippage they and Orbital will busy for this entire decade.
SpaceX will be under grave political risk after the elections next year. They have made a lot of enemies.
deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, said Monday that he believes “around 80 percent†of its proposed reforms can be done through “executive authorityâ€
The Administration has done much to strangle the economy and terrify business using executive authority through the EPA, IRS, HHS. It seems now they want to play fast and lose with export controls for the benefit of despots in China and Russia. Congress won’t be happy.
sftommy wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“Wonder if SpaceX will do their public stock offering before their November (or more likely December) launch.”
Last I heard Musk talked about 2012 for the IPO, and I would suspect it would be after they complete the COTS program successfully. My thinking is that it’s always good to have something great to point to when you’re doing an IPO, and being certified to dock with the ISS is significant especially since that is the vehicle they will also use for crew. And likely they are doing an IPO so they can pursue the crew enhancements without running their cash reserves down too much.
Musk wasn’t even sure if he was going to actually do an IPO, and likely if they do it will only be for a small portion of the company since Musk has stated he wants to remain the majority stockholder so they can focus on creating more capabilities, and not on ROI. Should make for interesting stockholder meetings…
Just a minor point. NASA has not lost the ability to orbit astronauts for the first time in 50 years. It has lost the ability to do so for the first time in 30 years. There was no real prospect of being able to launch further Apollos after ASTP.
Admittedly, that’s still a big number and it says little for NASA’s ability to plan ahead when Bush II decreed that the plug must be pulled on STS.
As soon as Ares-I hit road-bumps and the timeline started spooling out rightwards towards 2015 or later, Plan-B (using Atlas-V-5H2 to launch Orion) should have been rolled out as a parallel-development back-up with a down-select to the first one ready once the day comes. Even if failure is not an option, a wise man is prepared for when it starts knocking at the door, IMHO at least.
I suppose that’s why I’m glad that there are at least five crew launch options under development in the US at the moment. Some might decry the dilution of funding and effort over three LVs and five crew vehicles but I am not one of them. At least this way, at least one is likely to reach flight status.
P.S.: The Russians apparently want to end the ISS program in 2020. I’m wondering if that is a budgetary or engineering decision.
“We’re going to be in a period where we can’t put humans into orbit for the first time in 50 years,†he tells Houston’s KHOU-TV. (As previously noted, there have been previous gaps in NASA’s ability to launch humans into orbit.)”
Of course, shuttle was in work from 72 and planned for a 77/78 launch and ‘the gap’ between July, 1975 and March 1981 is a mere five an a half years– about the same amount of time shuttle was grounded for ‘repair’ after Challenger and Columbia.
It’s a little hard to remember now after three decades of relatively ‘routine’ access to space how little ‘access’ there truly was before shuttle. And a quick review of shuttle history shows that, in fact, it was three years behind schedule when it finally left the pad. During the famed ‘gap’ between Apollo and STS-1, they were at least busy at something definitive. But budgets had been cut, DoD redesign requirements forced changes (paid for almost totally by NASA BTW.) Faget is on record saying the original design for NASA requirments was for a shuttle w/a 25,000 payload. They encountered pesky, main engine development problems and problems in the TPS surfaced with inconsistencies in tile production due to the contractor errors, etc.
The ‘gap’ facing NASA today is pretty much void of such challenging problems because no hard decisions have been made other than to end shuttle. Griffin said it’s going to be a lost decade. Garver disagrees but Griffin may ultimately be right– one of the few times he has ever been correct.
@amightywind wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 11:09 am
“”The Era of Soyuz has begun!” I posted this link on this forum last week.”
Old news. This week, it’s “The Flight To Safety.” That era has begun and it quite literally will be a ‘gold’-en’ age. Every point the Dow drops pushes space further down the list of national priorities.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Some Russians are nervous because they know commercial crew will start soon and their days of gouging us for flights will be over.” LOL Nonsense, That’s shill talk. Commerical crew is going no place fast. Tick-tock, tick-tock, fella.
“There have been Tea Party protests against Obama’s space policy and the cancellation of Constellation.”
Protests, plural? How many? Where? When?
And they were planned or endorsed by what official Tea Party organization? Evidence? Quote? Link?
“Stop making things up.”
I’m not. I’ve provided a link to a Tea party website with an official call to action for members to contact the congressmen about defunding SLS.
You’ve made a claim about multiple, official Tea Party protests to the contrary, but provided no evidence.
Don’t make stuff up.
“Is there anyone in Houston capable of telling the truth?!”
I can answer that question; yes.
As for the rest of your post- what meaning does it have? I do not see anything there worth my time; thanks for wasting it.
“They firmly believe-”
Is this insult NASA day or something? You are really stretching the blanket- I do not think they “firmly believe” anything close your hyperbole.
“-plunge the International Space Station (ISS) into the ocean at the end of its life cycle after 2020-”
Do it now! DO IT NOW!! Please.
“Given SLS slippage they and Orbital will busy for this entire decade.”
What are you talking about? SLS is for BEO flight.
Why the regulars here feel have this relentless advertising going on here is beyond me. No one reads this stuff except for the Private Space fans and those (like me) who must speak out against such idiocy.
“What are you talking about? SLS is for BEO flight.”
No, per the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, SLS and MPCV are suppossed to provide backup transportation to the ISS. Based on all the analysis so far of the Senate-designed SLS, SLS and MPCV won’t be transporting astronauts until after the 2020 ISS retirement milestone.
Don’t make stuff up.
Lets hope that Bigelow will have oneof his inflatable stations up by the time they deorbit the ISS! I truly hope all this commercial talk doesnt deflate in front of our eyes.
The Age of US HSF Mediocrity has begun…..
VirgilSamms wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
“Given SLS slippage they and Orbital will busy for this entire decade.â€
What are you talking about? SLS is for BEO flight.
I’m talking America putting Americans in orbit, something only SLS, SpaceX and Orbital can possibly deliver this decade. Narrow minded comprehensive abilities is also a type of idiocy that needs be countered. Can you add something else, constructive this time, to this discussion, please?
Hey Virgil, ULA might also get American’s in space in their Atlas V later this decade. Just helping you widen your vision a little bit more if I can.
“Why the regulars here feel have this relentless advertising going on here is beyond me. No one reads this stuff except for the Private Space fans and those (like me) who must speak out against such idiocy.”
It’s funny, but if it weren’t for ATK shills like you posting the same tired garbage over and over again, the conversation could actually move past the obligatory corrections to your dis-information.
You made a grand exit a few months ago (remember that?) and no one missed you. We still had a couple of trolls around, but at least it was one less classless fool.
Why don’t you stick to being a rah-rah boy for Spudis, and let those of us who deal in reality learn about and discuss the future of manned space flight?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/preliminary-nasa-evolved-sls-vehicle-21-years-away/
the title says it all…this is the final “end” game for SLS…RGO
“There’s a bit of a lull in space policy now, after the shuttle has landed and with Congress and the administration preoccupied with much bigger, pressing issues.”
Let’s hope it is only a lull.
VirgilSamms wrote @ July 27th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Rest easy. Their paper space projects are just that- paper. Space exploitation is not space exploration. They pump out press releases and make noise– but fly nobody. In reality, they’ve made minimal progress over the past half century as that high risk/low ROI is a big hurtle to profiteers playing as rocketeers. They’re forced to plea for government subsidies for projects that fly to government O&O destinations (like the ISS) while ‘advertising’ themselves as private enterprised firms. Space projects of scale – and of consequence- will be government funded and operated for decades to come. Whether they’re American is in question in the Age of Austerity and the dysfunction in play in Washington these days does little to reassure any promising future for American space efforts over the next decade. But it’s a safe bet that the only Mars Master Musk has a chance of retiring to is the quaint hamlet of Mars, Pennsylvania.
Dream Chaser looks promising and CBS News aired a package on them last week. Virgin Galactic is promisng as well, with paying passengers on sub-orbital jaunts, but in terms of what it accomplishes aside from making money, it’s Shepard redux circa 1961– only/w more people along for the ride– not that there’s anything wrong with that. But 50 years on it in an indicator of how difficult private commerical HSF is to get off the ground. But it’s certain the hangar door closed on a grand era last week. And when one door closes, another one opens. It just may take a decade to find the right key to unlock it.
@Bennett wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 12:39 am
=yawn= Now that NASA’s not planning on launching anyone from the Cape for years, the sky awaits y’all… just as it has done, since 1961. Tick-tock, tick-tock, fella. Get somebody up, around and down safely. Stop talking. Start flying.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 1:32 am
Uh, no, actually, Oler, this says it all:
http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/57520-russia-says-it-will-sink-the-international-space-station
Ben Russell-Gough wrote:
NASA has not lost the ability to orbit astronauts for the first time in 50 years. It has lost the ability to do so for the first time in 30 years.
Depends on how one defines “ability.” Shuttle was down twice, in the mid-1980s after Challenger and mid-2000s after Columbia. In fact, after the latter we relied on the Russians for 2 1/2 years.
It’s just another lie made up by the people trying to protect the porking status quo.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
the title says it all…this is the final “end†game for SLS
I’m generally leery of anything that shows up on NASASpaceflight.com since they seem to be rah-rah for the status quo … But in any case, if one reads through the article it still says the first unmanned flight will be in December 2017, an unmanned mission to send Orion around the Moon.
(Some wags will no doubt suggest it be a one-way trip …)
The manned mission to orbit the Moon would be August 2021.
Of course, all of this is theoretical. It’s up to Congress to approve it, and they haven’t, which is why I wouldn’t take this article too seriously. And the article does say these dates are based on a worst-case poor-funding scenario.
The dates do generally align with what Charlie said in Congressional testimony recently.
Bennett wrote:
You made a grand exit a few months ago (remember that?) and no one missed you. We still had a couple of trolls around, but at least it was one less classless fool.
With all due respect … I’ve said it many times, and it’s unfortunate that no one listens, but the best way to deal with the trolls is to ignore them. If they get no response, it drives them batty as you deny them the attention they want. I don’t respond when certain trolls post insults attacking me personally. I wish everyone else would follow the same policy.
At the time of the 1983 General Election in the UK, the Labour Party’s election manifesto was described by some commentators as “the longest suicide note in modern political history”. If this ‘plan’ that NSF have scooped is the final SLS plan, and these pessimistic schedules are borne out by the independent cost estimators (and this move suddenly has a wholely different feel in the light of this revelation), then it represents NASA HSF’s equivalent statement of intent.
Lets hope that Bigelow will have oneof his inflatable stations up by the time they deorbit the ISS!
You could fund one of their modules with a fraction of the annual ISS budget. A modest space station with support for space tourism makes infinitely more sense than the international white elephant orbiting now. Fortunately for the budget, ISS has only a slim chance of making it to 2020. A major malfunction of the kind that has already occurred will bring it down.
Every point the Dow drops pushes space further down the list of national priorities.
I am watching carefully, ever ready to jump in and be ‘greedy when others are fearful’.
I am sorry I did not respond to this sooner. Mr. Mark Whittington, you have never once called, emailed, or otherwise contacted me. I would be happy to sit down with you, or anyone, and talk about fiscal responsibility, limited governments, and free markets in American Space Policy.
There are many Tea Party groups. Most are local as all politics is local. There are also state and national coordinators. However, TEA Party in Space is a national organization. We are non-partisan. We work inside NASA states and also outside of NASA states. We work with state coordinators as we plan for the 2012 election so the Tea Party has a sound space platform which you can see on our website.
And yes, it is our position that SLS violates the Tea Party core values of fiscal responsibility. The fact that we have wasted billions and have nothing to show for it speaks volumes. So does JWST for that matter.
Sorry I did not reply sooner, but frankly, I am just too busy to respond to a few trolls who try to discredit the Tea Party. Jeff’s sight is awesome and I am thankful to post here. I just wish I had more time to post valuable content from time to time…
…now back to NewSpace2011 and the sub-orbital panel.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
Andrew Gasser wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
It use to be Whittington’s position that a project like SLS was a bad thing. He has moved as his politics dictate, but he was once against what he is now for RGO
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 6:53 am
With all due respect … I’ve said it many times, and it’s unfortunate that no one listens…
‘With all due respect,’–perhaps you haven’t caught on- folks listen to your POV… it’s just nobody attaches any value to it. The atmosphere of Jupiter is dense, as well.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 6:53 am
“With all due respect … I’ve said it many times, and it’s unfortunate that no one listens, but the best way to deal with the trolls is to ignore them.”
Even that doesn’t always work (ignoring them), since now they are blasting each other and keeping the threads going.
Usually when I decide to engage it’s in response to a topic I want to discuss with the audience in general, and not necessarily with the normally closed-minded trolls.