NASA, Other

SLS report and another poll

NASASpaceFlight.com reported late Wednesday on a draft manifest for the Space Launch System (SLS) under a “budget restricted” scenario. According to that document, the first SLS launch would take place in 2017 and send an uncrewed Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on a circumlunar trajectory. The next SLS mission would not take place until 2021, and carry a crewed Orion on the same type of mission. Those initial SLS missions would use the initial SLS configuration with shuttle-derived components. The “evolved” SLS, with a capacity of 130 metric tons to LEO, would not debut until 2032. Those initial milestones would appear to match up with comments by NASA administrator Charles Bolden at a House hearing earlier this month, where he said the SLS would debut in 2017 carrying an uncrewed Orion, but that the SLS would not be human-rated until “late this decade, early ’20s”.

Another poll released yesterday adds to the volume of polling data about the public’s perceptions about the end of the shuttle program and NASA’s future. The IBOPE Zogby found that 59 percent of respondents disagree with the decision to end the shuttle, with nearly three quarters saying that the shuttle was a good use of government resources. Echoing some other polls, 48 percent said that “future space exploration” should be done by both NASA and private companies, versus 28 percent who said NASA alone should do it. (The poll does not define what “space exploration” means in this context.) Three in five respondents said the were very or somewhat concerned that the US would fall behind other nations in the ability to explore space.

42 comments to SLS report and another poll

  • The SLS should be looked at as a family of launch configurations like the Delta IV and Atlas V family of rockets– and not just as a heavy lift vehicle.

    Crew versions using the LOX/LH2 could easily achieve orbit without SRBs and with an EDS type of upper stage could probably transport the MPCV practically anywhere within cis-lunar space.

    And once you develop the LOX/LH2 core vehicle, you could use up to four of the current 4-segment SRBs for super heavy lift cargo flight configurations or you could easily configure it in the same manner as the Delta IV heavy (three core vehicles plus an upper stage) for super heavy lift cargo flights within cis-lunar space.

    But there’s really no need for the delays and the extra billions spent on attempting to develop 5-segment SRBs, IMO, unless ATK pays for the development themselves with their own funds:-)

  • Martijn Meijering

    Maybe SLS will be NASA’s answer to Duke Nukem Forever…

  • amightywind

    Sounds like an Ares IV mission profile. As part of a larger program, ok. What does the Lunar mission profile look like? The Ares IV was not large enough to launch an EDS and Altair. Mike Griffin knew that, which is why Ares V grew to 10m diameter. One must ask again, what is the plan? We already know the answer, for Bolden to survive long enough to max out his pension.

  • Robert G. Oler

    this is the last end game of SLS RGO

  • Mark Whittington

    Clearly NASA, at the behest of the Obama administration, is trying to kill SLS by putting out this absurd manifest. It doesn’t matter, of course. We’re not going to progress anywhere until this president is out of office.

  • Mark Whittington

    On the Zogby Poll, Jeff left out that only 17 percent think that the private sector should do “space exploration” alone. It looks like a plurality agree with the Bush policy of public/private engagement.

    One other observation. It looks like the public is not buying all of the happy talk about the brave new age of space exploration that NASA and its enablers are putting out. It is a case of believing people like Lori Garver or believing ones lying eyes.

  • GeeSpace

    First, I think NASA should hire some good rocket engineers and builders. Apparently, NASA doesn’t have any at the present time.

    Secondly, having an “evolved” SLS, with a capacity of 130 metric tons to LEO, would not debut until 2032 is really a non starter. Space businesses are told that they need a reasonable 5-10 year business plan to obtain funding. How does NASA plan to maintain interest and funding for 21 years?

    Thirdly. It seems apparent that the NASA decision makers are not really interested in bulding a heavy lift vehicle with public money

    Fourthly, with that type of planning schedule, why do we need NASA?
    Perhaps, NASA should be disbanded. And, don’t worry Commerical space fans, the commerical space subsidaries can flow throught the Department of Commerce.

  • I would love to hear a rational justification for the 4 year gap between the first and the second test flights. Un-Bold would probably more accurate than Bold-en.

    “The continued delays to the announcement are now causing numerous managers and workers – at least those remaining after the massive jobs losses shortly after Atlantis’ return – to question if the delay is based on politically-aligned tactics to kill the SLS.

    As many are aware, a second round of job cuts are expected to be carried out soon at key SLS bases – such as the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans, where managers have attempted to delay and extend WARN notices in the hope of bridging the gap between Shuttle and SLS – again based on the raised hopes of the June configuration decision by General Bolden.

    The continued delays have now resulted in MAF’s management losing patience, as August 26 was set as the date for all of the remaining workforce – a key SLS skill set – to be released.

    In effect, those opposed to SLS – such as the architects of the FY2011 plan – only need to delay another month before they can cite the “difficulties and costs” of having to rehire workers to build a vehicle which could have been announced when the workforce was still in place.”

  • Joe

    You might want to check out NASA Watch for the next step in this rolling Train Wreck (entirely of the Administrations making.

    http://nasawatch.com/

  • On the Zogby Poll, Jeff left out that only 17 percent think that the private sector should do “space exploration” alone.

    Who has ever proposed that it be otherwise?

    Straw man much?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    “In effect, those opposed to SLS – such as the architects of the FY2011 plan – only need to delay another month before they can cite the “difficulties and costs” of having to rehire workers to build a vehicle which could have been announced when the workforce was still in place.”

    I snickered when I read that…the beloved have finally figured it out. This is what is happening. It is something I have been saying for about a year now.

    In the end, how it ends is that there is no funding or really any desire by most of Congress to do what they say that they want to do…ie build a HLV that is shuttle derived. They need it to die in a way that can be pointed toward the administration, when really they (congress) are taking no real action to save it. Reason…there is no money.

    Why the four year gap? Oh lots of reasons. Why the “fly 1 a year”? Oh lots of reasons…most of all…no one really wants the vehicle except the people who are counting on it as a jobs program.

    It is amazing to me how stupid most space advocates are.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    “Clearly NASA, at the behest of the Obama administration, is trying to kill SLS by putting out this absurd manifest. It doesn’t matter, of course. We’re not going to progress anywhere until this president is out of office.”

    Sir Humphrey would be pleased…and when Obama is out of office Jan 2013 or Jan 2017 SLS will have long been dead, and no successor is going to revive it. Oh the joy.

    We are now left with the complaints that show SLS Was truely a jobs program.

    Dont worry Mark…soon SpaceX at least will be flying to ISS and you can then say “WOW BUSH DID IT”…LOL

    How does it feel to be so wrong so frequently RGO

  • Rhyolite

    Why is anyone surprised at the SLS cost and schedule? Look at the Ares I cost and schedule and then scale it up for a launch vehicle that is 3 to 5 times larger. Recent performance suggest they are being optimistic.

  • Coastal Ron

    GeeSpace wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    First, I think NASA should hire some good rocket engineers and builders. Apparently, NASA doesn’t have any at the present time.

    In case you hadn’t realized this yet, NASA doesn’t build anything – the aerospace industry does.

    Secondly, having an “evolved” SLS, with a capacity of 130 metric tons to LEO, would not debut until 2032 is really a non starter.

    What is the mythical 130mt payload mission that can’t be done in smaller increments? Are you suggesting that two 70mt launches can’t put enough mass up for whatever it is you want to do?

    Of course we still don’t know when NASA will get funding to build ANY SLS payloads…

    Thirdly. It seems apparent that the NASA decision makers are not really interested in bulding a heavy lift vehicle with public money

    Yes, why do we?

    You seem to think the right sequence of events is to build a transportation system, and then look around and see if it’s really needed.

    Why wouldn’t you identify the need first (the what, when and how much), and then figure out what type of transportation is needed?

    The SLS is a solution to a nonexistent problem, which makes it a waste of taxpayer money.

    It will do a wonderful job in stimulating the economy as a jobs program, which is what some of the Senators implied it was intended to do anyways, but otherwise it’s useless.

  • “Clearly NASA, at the behest of the Obama administration, is trying to kill SLS by putting out this absurd manifest. It doesn’t matter, of course. We’re not going to progress anywhere until this president is out of office.”
    Of course, Mark. It isn’t what you want to believe so it has to be a plot.

    “As many are aware, a second round of job cuts are expected to be carried out soon at key SLS bases”
    And of course, Nelson, the most important thing is NASA being a jobs program with actually being a space program a distant second place. If it’s a choice between one or the other, the former is preferable. If we could also actually do some spaceflight, that would be nice to have; but that’s just gravy compared to the primary goal.

  • Major Tom

    “Clearly NASA, at the behest of the Obama administration…”

    The White House has not approved a schedule or anything else with respect to SLS yet. The White House has asked for independent cost evaluations of the SLS design that Bolden selected, and those will be ongoing until the end of August. The White House won’t make a decision on the SLS schedule (or design or anything else SLS-related) any sooner than a month from now.

    “Bolden said the Obama administration is awaiting the results of an internal cost assessment of the reference design he selected June 14 and forwarded to the White House for approval. In parallel, Booz Allen Hamilton is conducting an independent assessment of the cost of the design. Lori Garver, Bolden’s deputy, said last week those assessments may not be ready until early next month, and Bolden said the final design may not be set until the end of August, if then.”

    http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/mstory.do?id=news/asd/2011/07/13/02.xml&channel=space&headline=Bolden%20Sees%20Possible%202017%20Flight%20Of%20Orion/SLS

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “… is trying to kill SLS by putting out this absurd manifest.”

    The manifest is driven by the budget. SLS and MPCV are already underfunded to the tune of at least $1 billion.

    The 2010 NASA Authorization Act assigned SLS a FY12 budget of $2.7 billion and MPCV an FY12 budget of $1.1 billion.

    http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

    The House, however, has cut the FY12 SLS budget to $2.0 billion (a $700 million or 26% reduction) and the FY12 MPCV budget to $1.1 billion (a $300 million or 21% reduction).

    http://www.aip.org/fyi/2011/090.html

    Those two cuts together total $1.1 billion or 24% of the combined $4.1 billion FY12 budget for SLS and MPCV.

    We can’t expect NASA to execute a design that Congress has dictated on the schedule Congress has dictated when Congress is cutting the budget for that design by one-quarter. It’s unrealistic in the extreme not to expect schedules to shift years to the right when one-fourth of your budget is disappearing.

    If certain congressmen want a certain mega-launcher by a certain date, then they need to ensure that the rest of congress adequately funds that mega-launcher to meet that date.

    If certain congressmen are incapable of ensuring adequate funding, then they need to give NASA the flexibility to pursue lower cost approaches to meeting the nation’s human space exploration lift needs.

    It doesn’t get any simpler than that. I have a elementary school nephew who budgets for new toys better than certain SLS supporters in Congress are doing right now.

    Sigh…

  • Major Tom

    “First, I think NASA should hire some good rocket engineers and builders. Apparently, NASA doesn’t have any at the present time.”

    SLS payload requirements, contracts, workforce, schedule, and budget have all been dictated by the staff of certain Senators without any hard, independent analysis of whether those requirements are valid, whether those requirements, contracts, and workforce fit within that schedule and budget, and whether there are lower-cost and faster alternatives. And since those parameters were set, the budget has been cut by nearly one-quarter and additional requirements with regards to additional booster engines have been set by other Senators.

    NASA should not be blamed for SLS being fubar. The agency is just trying its best to meet unfounded, incoherent, and incompatible Senate directives that are all about preserving jobs and not creating an effective heavy lift vehicle.

    Nothing is ever perfect, but NASA could do a lot better if the agency was given the latitude to determine appropriate civil human space exploration lift requirements, examine options, and pursue the most efficient course to meeting those requirements.

    FWIW…

  • So what does this schedule look like if NASA were to be fully funded to achieve the end goals as soon as possible and how much would that cost?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “On the Zogby Poll, Jeff left out that only 17 percent think that the private sector should do “space exploration” alone”

    Not really, considering that a lot of people such as yourself pretty much want to have NASA become a banker for the NewSpace companies with an unlimited line of credit.

    “Major Tom”

    Nope, the manifest is not driven by the budget because we only have this yeat’s funding. NASA, were it dealing in good faith, would have presented a number of scenarios based on differnt funding levels. Instead they are presenting the worse case scenario, take it or leave it, while giving the Congress the middle finger on SLS documents. With the Senate now issuing subpeonas, this is going to get very ugly, very fast.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “Sir Humphrey would be pleased…and when Obama is out of office Jan 2013 or Jan 2017 SLS will have long been dead, and no successor is going to revive it. Oh the joy.”

    Oler, considering your track record on predictions, I think I will take your idea about what President Palin or President Perry will do with a grain of salt. One also has to considered your checkered political history.

  • Alex

    Amen, Major Tom. I’ve noted before that these same staffers playing Von Braun are the ones who can’t get metric tonnes vs. tons right, and have a habit of misspelling “Endeavour” on press releases from the ostensibly pro-NASA Hutchison. No wonder they love to pseudononymously lurk on NSF.com and whip up the peasants into a frenzy.

  • josh

    oh, and btw: nothing will happen. bolden and garver will finish sls off in time. if not them their successor will kill it, doesn’t matter who that will be.

  • Major Tom

    “Nope, the manifest is not driven by the budget because we only have this yeat’s funding.”

    Reread my post. My figures are from the FY12 SLS/MPCV budget, which Congress has cut by 24%. Not the FY11 budget.

    “NASA, were it dealing in good faith, would have presented a number of scenarios based on differnt funding levels.”

    No, a good faith budget is conservative. It doesn’t make liberal, optimistic, fairy tale assumptions about an unprojected NASA topline like Griffin did with Constellation.

    Especially in this fiscal environment. We’re a week from the federal government defaulting on the debt for the first time in history, and all the deficit options on the table pull at least a trillion dollars out of the domestic discretionary budget that NASA is funded from. It would be ridiculously irresponsible for NASA or any other department or agency not to assume a lower-bound budget.

    And to be brutally honest, no one should be surprised that it’s going to take this long to develop a Shuttle-derived HLV. Even under ESAS, the CaLV (which eventually became Ares V) wasn’t going to launch until 2018, and that was starting back in 2005. SLS actually launches one year earlier, 2017, from a starting point that is more than half a decade later, 2011 or 2012. Relative to the original Constellation plan, there’s nothing to complain about on SLS — it’s actually delivers a year earlier.

    And given the Constellation experience with year-for-year schedule slips and the Augustine report, which didn’t anticipate an Ares V launch any sooner that 2028, the SLS plan with a first launch in 2017 is probably also wildly optimistic, even with a lower-bound budget.

    “With the Senate now issuing subpeonas, this is going to get very ugly, very fast.”

    No, it’s about to get very slow and tiresome. NASA will have a period of time to respond to the subpoena. If certain Senators still don’t like NASA response, the committee can send a report of contempt to the full Senate. The full Senate would then have to find Bolden (or whomever is named in the report) in contempt. If they do, the matter is then referred to the U.S. Attorney, who then has to impanel a grand jury to determine whether to prosecute. If they prosecute, then there’d finally be a trial in which someone might actually be fined (limited to a whopping $100-1,000) and/or go to jail (limited to 1-12 months). Given the extraordinary length of this process, the large number of gates in the process, the high likelihood that the process will be stopped cold at one of those gates, the relatively light punishments meted out at the end of the process, and the fact that only one person has actually been fined or gone to jail for contempt of congress since 1975, the subpoena is effectively toothless.

    This is a process that takes years to carry out. The House found Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and other Bush II Administration officials in contempt back in 2007-8 and those matters are still ongoing in mid-2011. If certain Senators want the Executive Branch to make a timely decision on SLS, then throwing subpoenas around isn’t going to help. It threatens to turn a decision that the White House was likely going to make in the upcoming weeks into a multi-year legal logjam.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “No wonder they love to pseudononymously lurk on NSF.com and whip up the peasants into a frenzy.”

    To be fair, only one staffer posts there (that I’m aware of). But he’s putting others at risk by putting into a public record on that website that there are unnamed sources upon which the SLS and MPCV directives in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act are based and that he refuses to name those sources. If those sources (individuals or entities) qualify as lobbyists but have not properly registered or reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (and related legislation), they could lose priveleges and face fines.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    “Oler, considering your track record on predictions,”

    and what here in space policy have I predicted badly?

    When you were chortling the Bush annoncement of going back to the Moon I predicted almost to the year when it would start falling apart. I predicted how it would fall apart, and I predicted that (sadly) there would be nothing of substance to survive it

    I have pretty much over the last year predicted how things were going to play out with the change in space policy…seems I am pretty much right on the money.

    You predicted we would take Iraq with 50,000 troops, you predicted The Bush space policy would herald a new millennium of space travel…I’ll just stay with space politics…what have you gotten correct.

    President Perry or Palin LOL I’ll try and find Palin’s movie on DvD for my political “fail” paraphernalia box since it has been a colossal bomb…and my political prediction for the day Michelle Bachman will tear Perry’s eyes out if he has the courage to get in. Most likely good hair wont, somebody is going to likely remind him of the 30 billion dollar deficit Texas has on his watch…YIKES

    Robert G. Oler

  • VirgilSamms

    “-and what here in space policy have I predicted badly? ”

    Only that human space flight is a bad idea in general (probably because you can’t stand anyone being an astronaut when you were not).

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 28th, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    The straw man is that it could do it at all. The private sector will never do any space exploration w/o a profit incentive as a goal which space exploration in this era does not have. Space exploitation is not space exploration.

  • Alex

    “To be fair, only one staffer posts there (that I’m aware of). But he’s putting others at risk by putting into a public record on that website that there are unnamed sources upon which the SLS and MPCV directives in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act are based and that he refuses to name those sources. If those sources (individuals or entities) qualify as lobbyists but have not properly registered or reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (and related legislation), they could lose priveleges and face fines.”

    My mistake. I had thought there were two or three, but upon re-reading the NSF threads, the other staffers — “a.space” and/or “anonymous.space” — appear to be AGAINST SLS.

    It can get very confusing in that fever swamp.

  • BillB

    The only way that SLS and “exploration” will happen in any reasonable time frame will be a Chinese “surprise.” If the Chinese start putting their taikonauts beyond LEO, and – heaven forbid – landing them on the moon, then there will be an outcry for the USA to “Take back space.”

    But I’m afraid that in this Tea party driven budget environment, nothing will happen outside of more studies, renderings and the of mentioned “job programs” thinly spread throughout the congressional districts.

  • Actually, what the administration is– really saying– is that they want NASA to delay deciding on the final configuration for the SLS by nearly a decade so that they can decide whether or not to use 5-segment SRBs or or RP1/LOX booster for the HLV configuration. This would also give Obama’s buddy Elon a chance to get in on the action. Elon never saw a tax payer dollar he didn’t like:-)

    To add insult to injury, they’re limiting the SLS launches to one per year for a decade so that the OMB will say that the SLS’s recurring cost are– unsustainable. But the SLS is unsustainable if you really don’t want to use it!

    I should note that once you’ve built the LOX/LH2 core vehicle, you’ve already got the elements of a supper heavy lift vehicle by either using the core vehicle in a Delta IV heavy configuration (three core vehicles) or by adding 2 to four 4-segment SRBs that are already in existence.

    The upper stage is probably the cheapest component of them all with development cost consistently estimated by NASA at between two to three billion dollars. Man-rating a Delta IV heavy upper stage instead of simply building an upper stage doesn’t make much sense.

    I should also say that any silly Apollo 8 style flyby mission of the Moon would be a huge waste of tax payer dollars. Real cis-lunar missions for the MPCV should be to lunar orbit, and to the Lagrange points: L1, L2, L4, and L5. These missions should be a prelude to a lunar base program starting by 2020.

    NASA needs to simply let Boeing build a man-rated LOX/LH2 core vehicle and a real upper stage capable of transporting the MPCV to L1 or Lunar orbit without the need for SRBs. And they should also allow Boeing to use its Delta IV heavy knowledge to use multiple LOX/LH2 cores or two to four 4-segment SRBs for heavy lift cargo flights to LEO and beyond.

    But there is no immediate need to develop the super expensive 5-segment SRBs, IMO, unless ATK wants to develop them themselves.

  • Major Tom

    “Actually, what the administration is– really saying– is that they want NASA to delay deciding on the final configuration for the SLS by nearly a decade so that they can decide whether or not to use 5-segment SRBs or or RP1/LOX booster for the HLV configuration. This would also give Obama’s buddy Elon a chance to get in on the action.”

    Aerojet and Teledyne Brown, not SpaceX, have been lobbying for the kerosene booster.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33739

    “To add insult to injury, they’re limiting the SLS launches to one per year for a decade so that the OMB will say that the SLS’s recurring cost are– unsustainable.”

    No, NASA (and eventually OMB when they weigh in) have limited SLS launches to one per year, because that’s all that can be afforded within a realistic budget projection.

    “The upper stage is probably the cheapest component of them all with development cost consistently estimated by NASA at between two to three billion dollars.”

    It’s not $2-3B. The prime contract for the J-2X engine from 2007 to 2012 is $1.2B. J-2X development runs through 2017, so you’re looking at another $1.2B (at least) for those five years, or $2.4B minimum for the ten-year engine development alone.

    http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum39/HTML/000126.html

    Throw in NASA oversight, stage design, stage development, integration and testing and you’re looking at $5B, easy.

    “Man-rating a Delta IV heavy upper stage instead of simply building an upper stage doesn’t make much sense.”

    Adding fault detection systems to an existing upper stage is hundreds of millions, at most. You’ll save billions of dollars over the new stage.

  • Major Tom

    “… the other staffers — “a.space” and/or “anonymous.space” — appear to be AGAINST SLS.”

    That individual is a former EXOP (not congressional) staffer.

    “It can get very confusing in that fever swamp.”

    Between Shuttle workers facing layoffs and well-intentioned folks who have sunk a lot of time into DIRECT, it’s understandable. But it’s not an acceptable basis for multi-ten-billion dollars decisions that will affect the future of the nation’s civil human space program for decades to come.

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel wrote:

    “Actually, what the administration is– really saying– is that they want NASA to delay deciding on the final configuration for the SLS by nearly a decade so that they can decide whether or not to use 5-segment SRBs or or RP1/LOX booster for the HLV configuration.”

    No, you are incorrect. In President Obama’s 2010 budget he called for a decision on heavy lift NO LATER than 2015. In that five year period a whole of tech tools were going to be developed. When some of those projects had raised their TRL’s NASA was going to have an open competition on a heavy lift.

    They were not really wanting a LOX/LH2 core, they were going to develop a kerosine engine closer to a F1. It would be a lot cheaper and less leaking that was always plaguing the shuttle.

    A better mission than a lunar flyby would be a trip to an asteroid. They just discovered the first Earth trojan:

    Earth’s First Trojan Asteroid Discovered
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=34214

    That would be close enough for repeat trips.

  • “And of course, Nelson, the most important thing is NASA being a jobs program …”

    This is a BEO manned exploration program. If we go the shuttle-derived route, then we need key people form the Shuttle workforce who are experts on the RS-25 engine, SRBs, ET, etc…

    In any real engineering project, having even a few key experts can make a dramatic difference. I speak from experience.

    Also, the “jobs” argument simply does not hold water. NASA engineers and contractors don’t just want a job. They want to make a difference. If job security was their primary concern, then they never would have entered the volatile aerospace marketplace.

  • “To add insult to injury, they’re limiting the SLS launches to one per year for a decade so that the OMB will say that the SLS’s recurring cost are– unsustainable. But the SLS is unsustainable if you really don’t want to use it”

    I think you have identified their strategy. Maximize development costs by dragging out the program an insanely long time. Minimize the number of flights. That way, they can claim that the cost per launch is astronomical.

  • “But there is no immediate need to develop the super expensive 5-segment SRBs, IMO, unless ATK wants to develop them themselves.”

    Most of the 5 segment development work has already been completed and paid for, including 2 ground tests, and a simulated 5 segment test flight…

    But there are certainly many different ways to build an HLV, most of which can work, given a reasonable budget and timeline…

  • “This is a BEO manned exploration program. If we go the shuttle-derived route, then we need key people form the Shuttle workforce who are experts on the RS-25 engine, SRBs, ET, etc.”
    That;s just it, Nelson. There’s no need to go the shuttle-derived route, because as you yourself stated, “But there are certainly many different ways to build an HLV, most of which can work, given a reasonable budget and timeline…”

  • Coastal Ron

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ July 29th, 2011 at 3:51 am

    NASA engineers and contractors don’t just want a job. They want to make a difference.

    This is a silly statement. Everyone wants to make a difference, not just those that work for NASA or NASA contractors.

    When I hire people, I only hire people that have a passion for their job, no matter what it may be. It’s no different whether it’s building toilets or building rockets, people want to do a great job and be proud of what they do.

    In fact I would argue that startup companies have the most passion, since only those that are willing to risk their careers get involved, and they work far longer and harder than their peers in established companies. If you’re not staying late or working weekends while you’re on salary, you don’t have a passion for your job.

    To think that NASA or space exploration in general is somehow “special” is really ignorant.

  • VirgilSamms

    “To think that NASA or space exploration in general is somehow “special” is really ignorant.’

    Unbelievable. What an idiotic statement.

    “This is a silly statement. Everyone wants to make a difference,”

    Unbelievable idiocy again.

    “If you’re not staying late or working weekends while you’re on salary, you don’t have a passion for your job. ”

    No, usually it means you are divorced because your work was more important than your family.

    The reason Apollo flew was exactly what you are talking about- civil service workers who later commented on the sacrifices they made by working so many hours they really had no life at all.

    NASA workers and most of the population are not willing to do that anymore. Everyone deserves a life. You want to go back to the good old days when there were really no good old days. Everyone deserves a life.

    Except the people you hire, I guess.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ July 30th, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Unbelievable idiocy again.

    Well I guess I should have qualified it by saying that YOU don’t want to make a difference, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    No, usually it means you are divorced because your work was more important than your family.

    It’s not a 365 day a year behavior I’m talking about, but maybe you’ve never had the chance to work for a company like that, which is too bad, but I’ve worked for a few, and I know about lots more.

    It’s a phenomenon that is written about in business journals, and the practice is quite common in places like Silicon Valley.

    It’s part of following your passions in life.

    NASA workers and most of the population are not willing to do that anymore.

    Organizations that lose their passion can be easily overtaken by other organizations that have passion. It’s the way of the business world, and it’s too bad you don’t see it. Also, I didn’t invent it, and it goes on the world over, so you’re yelling at the wind when you diss it. Not unusual for you, of course…

  • VirgilSamms

    “Organizations that lose their passion can be easily overtaken by other organizations that have passion. It’s the way of the business world, and it’s too bad you don’t see it.”

    Too bad you do not see that business has very little to do with passion and everything to do with 1 penny of profit being the only ultimate goal. The corporate entity would burn a rain forest to a cinder if it would generate a penny for share holders- if they could get away with it.

    I did not invent this reality- you want to mix “passion” and “making a difference” with the profit motive and that is……asinine. It is the only word the moderator might let me get away with to describe your mindset.

    The survival of the human race is the only reason we will go into deep space. There is no profit to be made out there until there is an off world civilization in place to exploit. Your joe the space plumber fantasy is all you can see. It is not real.

    “I should have qualified it by saying that YOU don’t want to make a difference,-”

    Right Ron. Goodbye.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ August 1st, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Too bad you do not see that business has very little to do with passion and everything to do with 1 penny of profit being the only ultimate goal.

    I guess you haven’t have a good experience in your work life, which is too bad. I have, as have the thousands of people that I’ve had the pleasure to work with.

    There is no profit to be made out there until there is an off world civilization in place to exploit.

    What you’re describing is the classic chicken & egg problem, in that we can’t get an off world civilization going with purely NASA money, and that’s not NASA’s charter.

    So now you’re back to the same methods that were used to populate this world originally, which is exploration, exploitation and migration. Unless there is a government program to do that (ain’t gonna happen), then you’ll have to depend on economic forces to drive most of that. I think it will happen over a long period of time, but it wont’ be mainly NASA driven, that’s for sure.

    Right Ron. Goodbye.

    I noticed that even Paul is getting tired of your rants – that’s not a good sign… ;-)

Leave a Reply to Coastal Ron 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>