With work on the debt ceiling legislation complete, both the House and the Senate have now recessed for their traditional August break, and won’t return until after Labor Day. That means that work on appropriations legislation, among other items, is on hold until then. The House Appropriations Committee passed its version of an appropriations bill that includes NASA and NOAA last month, but the bill didn’t make it to the House floor before recess. The Senate, meanwhile, has yet to formally start work on its version of such legislation, which could be significantly different from the House version, particularly for programs like the James Webb Space Telescope that the current draft of the House bill does not fund.
There isn’t a complete absence of activity on the Hill, though. NASA Watch reported this week about a draft letter to NASA and OMB regarding the Space Launch System (SLS). Like some previous requests from members of Congress, the letter calls on the administration “to publish its final design in an expeditious manner.” However, the letter also weighs in on the design, pushing the administration to incorporate solid rocket boosters in the SLS design to expedite its development. In particular, signatories of the letter state that they “will vehemently oppose the use of any government funds for the development of a new liquid propulsion system”, arguing that such spending would be “irresponsible” in the current fiscal climate when “existing technology, specifically solid rocket motors” can handle the task.
NASA Watch reports that the letter has been traced back to the Utah congressional delegation, which is not surprising as the solid rocket motors being proposed for the SLS are made in the state, and members of that delegation have spoken out in the past on the use of solids for the SLS. For example, last November members of the delegation met with NASA leaders to express their concerns NASA was “circumventing” the 2010 NASA authorization act by studying alternatives to solid rocket motors for the SLS. A statement after that meeting from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims that “Utah experts [the delegation] consulted say the legislation’s requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors.” The final paragraph of the new draft letter states, “Based upon expert advice the only way to realistically meet these requirements is through the use of Space Shuttle and Ares derived components, including solid rocket motors.”
Perhaps Bolden should agree very politely that solid rockets are essential for the next 30 years of spaceflight, point out that this essentiality makes it absolutely necessary that multiple commercial sources exist for all critical SLS components, and give a nice fat contract to Aerojet General. California’s got just as many Senate votes as Utah, and a whole lot more votes in the House.
What is so annoying in this entire thing is the hypocrisy of both red state pols and just “red voters” in particular advocating a very socialist oriented program and yet labeling anything else remotely like it as socialist. It goes to show how bankrupt the entire “red” argument is RGO
The idea of producing a shuttle based vehicle without using SRB’s is completely absurd. A gratuitous kerolox booster development program will never happen in this political climate. Bolden and his minions would be unwise to try to sell the idea to an increasingly irritable congress. I for one look forward to the day when large rockets rise once again from Pad 39A on twin pillars of flame.
Of course, ablastofhotair will praise the “unbiased” presentation of facts in the good Congressmen’s letter.
As for Orin Hatch, he earlier bragged that he had SLS set up where there would be no choice but to use Utah built SRBs.
http://mainstreetbusinessjournal.com/articleview.php?articlesid=5409&volume=13&issue=29
Boys and girls, can you spell “pork”?
With Jeff’s indulgence …
Yesterday (August 2) was the third anniversary of Barack Obama’s speech in Titusville, as the Democratic candidate for President. Much has been made of what he said that day — and many lies have been told about what he said (or didn’t say).
That speech was an early foundation for the Obama administration’s space policy.
I’ve written a column about that speech, what was said, what wasn’t said, and looked at whether Obama kept the promises he made.
“When Obama Visited Titusville — Revisited”
You can watch the video of that speech at the link.
He never said he would continue Constellation, despite some claims to the contrary.
He did say he would speed the development of “Shuttle’s successor.” Given the Augustine Committee’s conclusion that Ares I wouldn’t fly until at least 2017, all CCDev has to do is fly a crew to ISS earlier than 2017 (which seems likely) and that promise will have been kept. The big difference, of course, is that to pay for Ares I the U.S. would have defunded ISS, meaning it had nowhere to go; CCDev saved ISS.
The big red mark on that speech was Obama saying he would make sure “that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired because we cannot afford to lose their expertise.” That, of course, was impossible to do. But he did propose a $30 million grant program for jobs transition, a program that was blocked by the GOP in the House.
For the most part, I think Obama fulfilled the promises he made, or at least he tried. I don’t think he counted on the porking members of Congress to be so obstructionist and selfish.
“The idea of producing a shuttle based vehicle without using SRB’s is completely absurd.”
Except to Sen. Boxer and Sen. Feinstein:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110602-senators-competitive-heavy-lift-procurement.html
And Sen. Shelby:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110616-shelby-nasa-hold-competition-sls.html
“A gratuitous kerolox booster development program will never happen in this political climate.”
Yeah, there’s zero support in Congress for an RP-1 booster. Unlike Hatch’s letter, which has yet to obtain signatories, nevertheless get transmitted.
Don’t make stuff up.
With various Senators and elements of the House acting like toddlers fighting over the same toy and unable to reach agreement on basic SLS design features like booster engines, initial payload capability, and upper stage schedule, I’d argue that NASA and the Administration need to call a time out, send the children back to their corners, and produce a plan for a full and open SLS competition. At this point, it’s the only fair and equitable path forward that doesn’t subject the nation’s civil human space exploration program to an interminable and parochial tug-of-war in Congress. It also gives the program the best hope (albeit still slim) of producing an affordable and useful exploration-class lift capability.
FWIW…
Guys, Ive been telling you all along. Those hot 5 segment SRBs, wont be abandoned! At least not in this decade!
Those hot 5 segment SRBs, wont be abandoned! At least not in this decade!
There is nothing “hot” about them, and you’re right — they won’t be “abandoned” because they don’t exist in any useful form.
Every indication so far is that SRBs will be used in the first 5-10 years of the SLS, should it actually get that far. I’ve asked my two Senators not to sign off on this letter without significant give in either CCDEV or JWST.
Dennis, how much does the 5 segment SRB cost? How much does it cost to refurbish one?
As far as that goes, try and find out how much the 4 segment cost, and the cost to refurbish one?
After 30 years you would think that ATK could FINALLY tell the taxpayers a definitate price on the cost of those things.
Point1: The required design modifications to the shuttle external tank to configure it for the SLS system would be so extensive, it would bascially be starting from scratch (different internal structure for different external attach points, engine mounts, upper stage attachment, etc.).
Point 2: Solid rockets motors produce some pretyy nasty pollution at launch. Although not a lot compared to other polluting systems (like aircraft), I would still like to see NASA establish a “green” policy and use liquid hydrogen/oxygen engines instead. Also, I heard once that it costed NASA 25% more to refurbish a shuttle SRB than it cost to build one from scratch, if this is so, why continue to use them?
Being forced to rely on this old technology just makes it more difficult for NASA to focus on what system will best meet their long term requirements for a new rocket.
Congress really needs to work with NASA to establish the goals and the budget then step back and allow NASA to do the design work. I’m tired of hearing about the Senate Launch System.
Here’s a pretty good news article about commercial crew in the L.A. Daily News:
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_18603776
Former U.S. Air Force Space and Missiles Systems Center (SMC) Commander Gen. Tom Sheridan gives a warning about insuring American military access to space in Aviation Week:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/08/03/04.xml&headline=Retired%20General:%20Mil%20Space%20Investment%20Needed
Dennis, how much does the 5 segment SRB cost? How much does it cost to refurbish one?
It depends how many ya buy, comrade.
Tom Sheridan gives a warning about insuring American military access to space in Aviation Week:
Seems to me access to space is assured between Delta and Atlas. The performance of the RL-10 is about as high as you can reasonably expect from hydrogen. A J2-X will not deliver appreciably higher ISP, although it will produce more thrust. If you want more performance you are talking about a 3 engine widened Centaur.
If the SLS is built and flown, Solids are in through the first period of the rockets usage. I do believe Orion will be built and flown to deep space. However whether NASA in the end determines, perhaps after the 2013 Delta test flight, that an Atlas or Delta IV is the way to go, or perhaps the Falcon heavy, SRBs will be in use for a long time to come. Smile and be happy. Plus after seeing those test SRBs light up, yes they are hot! Better ring joints, better and improved engines. They seem to be going someplace. I dont think they will fly as Liberty, but as part of the SLS profile.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 8:46 am
“For the most part, I think Obama fulfilled the promises he made, or at least he tried.”
Then you’re not thinking clearly– because clearly he hasn’t. And revisionist histories won’t change that.
Vladislaw wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“As far as that goes, try and find out how much the 4 segment cost, and the cost to refurbish one?”
Information is scarce, especially when it’s for a program that lasted 30 years. However I did find the following:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8785
This shows that as of 2002 NASA was paying ATK $34.3M the production and refurbishment of each motor (2ea per flight).
The SLS will have a much lower flight rate, the motors will be 25% larger (5 segment vs 4), and supposedly will use new casings that will add to the initial costs (won’t reuse Shuttle casings). Add in the normal startup costs to get tooling, facilities and training going, and the cost for each SRM could easily be 2X or 3X higher than the Shuttle motors.
That could equal $200M/flight just for the two SRM’s, which equals $700/lb of cost for the 130mt version, or $1,296/lb for the 70mt version. That would make the SRM’s for the 70mt version of the SLS more expensive than the a complete Falcon Heavy rocket for getting payload to LEO. Ugh.
I think this gives us an indication of why liquid fueled boosters could be far more cost effective that solids.
amightywind wrote:
““It depends how many ya buy, comrade.”
An ares launch only needs one, so .. how much does just one cost.
I see you use “comrade”, I always knew you must be a commie at heart because you sure love the Stalinist model for space flight. A HUGE government program to build an unneeded, over priced, cost plus contracted mega rocket. You are a watermelon capitalist. Green on the outside but red in the middle.
Go pedal your commie big government programs someplace else.
If the SLS is built and flown, Solids are in through the first period of the rockets usage.
That’s a Utah-based fantasy. The real budget cutting hasn’t started at NASA yet, but when it does, that will be one of the first things to go. We’re broke, and can’t afford frivolous jobs programs any more.
amightywind wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 8:19 am
There I fixed it.
Dennis Berube wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
“If the SLS is built and flown, Solids are in through the first period of the rockets usage. I do believe Orion will be built and flown to deep space. ”
the SLS will not be built and flown, I suspect Orion will never make it into space either.
Rand is at least partially correct…the cutting has not even started at NASA. The nation nor most of its political parties can afford jobs programs that produce nothing of value period, much less compared with other expenditures.
We do need a jobs/infrastructure program in this country; but it is not building rockets that no one really needs and which cost far to much to fly. The money spent on SLS would be far better spent…on other things.
Robert G. Oler
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 8:46 am
“For the most part, I think Obama fulfilled the promises he made, or at least he tried. I don’t think he counted on the porking members of Congress to be so obstructionist and selfish.”
With more of Jeffs indulgence.
I think on Space policy Obama has tried as hard as anyone could and done about what anyone could have done in the same situation. The problem with the shuttle follow on program, is that there was simply no program that was working when Obama took office.
The more I talk to people the more I am convinced that Griffin did not go with the Atlas and Delta or growth variants of the two because he would lose buy in from the various “stake holders” because there was no role for ATK…USA.
What is astounding to me is that when Griffin recognized that he spent all his money (14 billion or so) on a set of rockets that had no chance of being ready in time. For that money, with a very focused team (or not even that focused a team) he should have been able to put together a “Shuttle C” (probably a sidemount) and had at least a “mid weight” lifter flying that had all the “stakeholders” employeed and maybe used Delta/Atlas for his crew lift.
Because doing that by the time of the end of the Bush administration (or being on the verge of it) was the key to keeping the program alive in transition to either a new GOP or more likely a new Dem President.
One of the things that makes me very unpopular at NASAspaceflight.com (imagine that) is I keep asking why this wasnt done? And I think that Mike Griffin should have to answer for that to all the people who want to know “where their job is”.
Of course The Creator looks after fools, Drunks, the US Navy and the USA…and he had both eyes on the ball as that option was missed because with nothing flying or nothing close to flying…well it was easy to kill it…exept with all the job holders.
As for after that. I think Obama and Bolden have done alright considering now they have a GOP House that is simply insane…(I dont think Obama has been very effective against them in general, indeed I am one of his biggest critics for how he is not dealing with them)…but on space policy Bolden at least has played teh Death cards of SLS…like Sir Humphrey.
And thats the master. RGO
Robert G. Oler wrote:
For that money, with a very focused team (or not even that focused a team) he should have been able to put together a “Shuttle C†(probably a sidemount) and had at least a “mid weight†lifter flying that had all the “stakeholders†employeed and maybe used Delta/Atlas for his crew lift.
Well, I think that after the CAIB report it was pretty unlikely that any sidemount vehicle would be the preferred choice.
At least they started COTS in 2005, and that laid the foundation for CCDev once Constellation hit the metaphorical wall. CCDev would have been a much tougher sell without COTS already in place; in fact, politically it would have been impossible.
I hope that, one day, someone will write a book about the evolution of Obama’s space policy, similar to John Logsdon’s recent release John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon. We know it went from an early position paper to the Titusville speech to the Augustine Committee, as the administration learned more about the mess it inherited. I look forward to the read, in about ten years or so.
I think on Space policy Obama has tried as hard as anyone could and done about what anyone could have done in the same situation.
His space team came up with the best policy in history, in terms of finally opening up space, and he was utterly incompetent at selling it. As he’s been with most of his policies (fortunately).
“One of the things that makes me very unpopular at NASAspaceflight.com ”
Robert,
You are very unpopular at more sites than just NASAspaceflight.com!
Robert G. Oler wrote:
One of the things that makes me very unpopular at NASAspaceflight.com (imagine that) …
I don’t post over there, but I’ve read some of the threads and in my opinion they rival the Tea Party for a lack of grasp on reality. But then I’ve seen people here in the Space Coast rooting for the Falcon 9 to blow up and heard tour guides tell KSC guests that Constellation is only “on hold” so NASASpaceFlight.com is not unique in its parallel universe mindset.
Senators and Congressman with a vested interest in the success of NASA
are good friends to have. We have a national interest in keeping key industries intact (like ATK) and right now (example with the massive
2000+ layoff coming to MSFC by Oct 1, 2011) it looks like a dedicated
effort to destroy the capability of NASA to manage and lead the
development of a new launch vehicle. Keep in mind that effort is not
closing buildings/test stands and manufacturing capabilities; it’s
people. People dedicated to the space program, who need to eat, be
productive and have a future. They get offended when they are discarded
by the administration in such a cruel way. Heartless is not harsh
enough. People who’s futures are impacted will vote. Just as they should
and 90% of the people who support space will not vote for the
administration’s plan. 3 people running NASA are holding on to billions
of dollars that could be spent on SLS NOW! They could rebuild most of
the teams and have them in place and ready to go with money they have
NOW! Congress, if they have to force a design on the NASA admin, they will
and Thank GOD for it. The 3 people running NASA have no interest in the
plan agreed to with congress. They have the goal of commercial alone.
Orion will be flying before any of the commercial firms are ready and on an EELV. If I was the next NASA administrator I would fly Orion to ISS and tell commercial crew provider go find someone else to buy your tickets.
FYI SLS SRBs will not be recovered.
RGO been more right than wrong which accounts for his so-called lack of popularity. Anyway, it’s not a popularity stakes, it’s about space policy or the lack of it. What I find interesting although not surprising, is the lack of rigour exhibited by some long time posters on this site. There seems no effort to investigate and determine facts.
Guess people prefer to live in their fantasy land. Certainly Congress seems happy to do so wrt debt levels: taxes or lack and spending like there’s no tomorrow.
N.A. wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 7:39 pm
“Robert,
You are very unpopular at more sites than just NASAspaceflight.com!”
ZOUNDS
I have in middle age accepted with some resignation but a dose of reality that I will never be universally loved. I was very unpopular here when shortly after Bush the last announced his vision for the lunar deal, I noted that it would flounder, why, and when…and although I missed the “when” by one year…I sadly was correct.
I will simply have to make do with the unconditional love of my children, my wife, and most of our pets…I am sure my newest daughter expected around 9 December is going to love me as well.
Robert G. Oler
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
“Well, I think that after the CAIB report it was pretty unlikely that any sidemount vehicle would be the preferred choice.”
If “I” had been Griffin and had to have functioned as he did (I would have resigned) but…what Griffin should have done is divorced cargo from people, moved the people to Delta/Atlas and then kept all the technowelfare programs going for Shuttle C…which could launch the parts.
This is what “I” recommended in a piece published in AV Leaks “Commercial Space” some years ago (it folded the next issue however so sigh perhaps I did it in…grin) but figured out eventually that unless one went to a “Skylab type” station then one wasnt going to gain anything by having a Shuttle C…and NASA was never going to a Skylab type station.
As an aside the arguments in that era were entertaining…the same arguments that are now being made for NASA heavy lift, were made against it (just the counter point).
Thinking about Shuttle C as I watched the Backyardigans with Lorelei it came to me as Pablo was talking about treasure, the reason Griffin did not want to put people on Atlas/Delta and develop Shuttle C…and wanted to have his own people/payload lifter.
At somepoint someone would notice the difference in cost between flying a pound on Atlas/Delta and a pound on Shuttle C …and well that wasnt going to work. It was only when the cost to fly on Ares 1 and 5 were both so high as to be unreasonable that there would never be a comparison…
As Pirate Pablo would say “ARRGH”
Robert G. Oler
@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 3rd, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Nonsense. Which policy- there heve been several, two i the campaign alone and the current policy is going no place fast. His ‘space policy’ is guided only by the politics of the moment. And at the moment, it’s in ‘free drift.’
Example: “[Obama] distributed a campaign document in 2007 that proposed a five-year delay in the Constellation program in order to finance a proposal for early-childhood education. He abandoned that idea in 2008 to heartily support the manned space program during his successful courtship of the pivotal swing state of Florida, home of the Kennedy Space Center.” – source, HoustonChronicle 6/11/09
And, of course, we’ve seen where that ‘hearty support’ for the manned space program has gone– abandoned and literally lost in space. He has no interest in America’s manned space program. No matter– at the rate he’s going for 2012,– he’ll never win Texas or Florida anyway.
And there’s this Obama ‘space policy’ gem — on this very forum, from early in 2008.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/02/obama-clarifies-his-space-policy/
“One of the things that makes me very unpopular at NASAspaceflight.com â€
NASAspaceflight.com is full of crazy people living in a bubble, so that would be a compliment. Always an amusing read though.
Let’s keep the comments here focused on the topic of the post and not about the motivations or mental stability of participants of other web sites. Thank you for your cooperation.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
I have in middle age accepted with some resignation but a dose of reality that I will never be universally loved. I was very unpopular here when shortly after Bush the last announced his vision for the lunar deal, I noted that it would flounder, why, and when…and although I missed the “when†by one year…I sadly was correct.
It’s amazing how many people think it’s more important to be “popular” than it is to be right.
I disagree with Rand’s politics, but he’s 100% right when it comes to U.S. space policy and I applaud him for that. He says what has to be said.
The same goes for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who’s been a lone voice on the House space subcommittee for years. He’s called out the porkers and challenged the conventional wisdom. I may not agree with everything he says, e.g. obsessing about asteroids striking the Earth, but he’s one of the few who isn’t playing the porkfest game.
it looks like a dedicated effort to destroy the capability of NASA to manage and lead the development of a new launch vehicle.
It is impossible to destroy that which doesn’t exist. The truth is that SLS is a blatant attempt to create a capability in a place where it isn’t needed not needed (because it’s available elsewhere, because we don’t need an HLV etc.), as a make work project.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 7:04 am
“I disagree with Rand’s politics, but he’s 100% right when it comes to U.S. space policy and I applaud him for that”
Nonsense. But then, every circus has a few clowns who clap in approvingly of the sideshow shills.
tom said: “We have a national interest in keeping key industries intact (like ATK) and right now (example with the massive 2000+ layoff coming to MSFC by Oct 1, 2011) it looks like a dedicated effort to destroy the capability of NASA to manage and lead the development of a new launch vehicle.”
And you think you have problems???
At KSC, thanks to the “Vision of Space Exploration” and the decisions made in 2004, we are losing the Shuttle, 8000 jobs, and the only workforce in the world with hands-on experience maintaining reusable launch vehicles and spacecraft. Over a thousand person-centuries of hard-won experience, that simply cannot be replaced, is disappearing as we speak. What will we do when we finally figure out that the public won’t pay for human spaceflight even at $20M a seat?