Congress, Lobbying, NASA

Conservative criticism of NASA spending

With concerns about overall federal spending higher than at any time in recent history, fiscal conservatives are taking a closer look at NASA spending, as evidenced by a couple of recent releases–although, at least in one case, their logic is muddled, at best.

Last week Tea Party in Space (TPIS) issued a press release in response to a letter reportedly linked to Utah’s congressional delegation about the use of solid rocket motors in the Space Launch System (SLS). TPIS “strongly condemned” that letter, arguing that the language in the letter strongly requesting the use of solid rocket motors on the SLS was “a sole-source bailout for the Solid Rocket Motor industry”. TPIS called on Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in particular to “disown” the letter if he is not involved in it and said anyone who signs on to it should be “ashamed” of themselves. “TPIS and its volunteer network will be reaching out nationwide to candidates and elected officials of all parties, to ensure that this sole-source earmark is terminated,” the release warned.

That logic is relatively straightforward compared to what the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) announced last week when it released its list of earmarks in the House version of the FY12 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill. The very first of the “outrageous examples of pork” they cited was for NASA, although it’s difficult to figure out exactly what they’re opposed to:

$237,800,000 to the NASA Space Exploration Crew Vehicle and Launch System, both part of the Constellation Systems Program. CAGW recommended in its 2011 Prime Cuts to eliminate Constellation after years of missed deadlines and cost overruns. In 2010, the Constellation Program was cancelled by the President, but the 2012 Commerce bill confirms that the program continues to receive funding.

SLS and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle are getting much more than the $237.8 million in the FY12 bill cited in the CAGW release: a little over $3 billion, or more than 12 times the amount listed in the release. There’s no other NASA program in the House appropriations bill getting a similar amount; the Exploration Research and Development line is the closest in subject matter and funding, at $289 million, but that doesn’t appear to be what CAGW is referring to. (I’ve contacted CAGW for clarification and will pass along anything I hear from them.)

105 comments to Conservative criticism of NASA spending

  • Mark Whittington

    The title of this post is misleading. “Tea Party in Space”, which is apparently three guys and a web site, and CAGW are more libertarian oriented than conservative. Conservatives a very interested in, among other things, maintaining American greatness, including a vigorous, well funded program of space exploration. “Pork” is by the way not “spending I do not like.” The commercial crew program is more porcine than the s[ace exploration program, strictly speaking.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote @ August 7th, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    ” Conservatives a very interested in, among other things, maintaining American greatness, including a vigorous, well funded program of space exploration.”

    people who believe in “maintaining American greatness” and use as a symbol of that government spending on programs and efforts which no value for the cost of them are no more “conservative” then SLS is a viable booster.

    Conservative values are Ike and the Interstate highway system…infrastructure which was designed to let people as individuals improve their lives and leisure and business…and it did that. it was federal spending (and still is) that builds federal infrastructure that private people and companies can take advantage of to improve their lives…and thats where the value comes from

    People like you want to build SLS for no reason that has anything to do with helping individuals to take advantage of space…your notion of American greatness is “the biggest toy in the national block”…you are fighting the cold war with borrowed money. It is that kind of thinking that has brought us to the brink of financial catastrophe.

    Goofy

    Robert G. Oler

  • @ Mark Whittington

    LOL, you really don’t see as a supporter of SLS the logical paradox between your statement about what conservatives are “interested in” and commercial crew being “porcine”. :)
    Reality disconnect alert!

  • Glad to see the response to the ATK letter. If their product can compete they’re in, if it can’t they can’t and they’re out. Let it be an engineering decision not a political one.

  • amightywind

    Its August and NASA news is slow, now that democrats have ended the shuttle program. Tea Party in Space is astroturf, pure and simple. Just a couple of newspace idiots trying to ride political coattails, and doing it successfully. This is not worthy of space politics.

  • SpaceColonizer

    TPIS is a member organization of the Tea Party Patriots. And I dare you to link us to what you would call a “true” Tea Party website that supports the SLS.

    P.S. I am not a Teabagger, but I’ll agree when appropriate. Still would like JWST completed.

  • Vladislaw

    ” “Pork” is by the way not “spending I do not like.” The commercial crew program is more porcine than the s[ace exploration program, strictly speaking”

    Strickly speaking, did you miss the meds truck this morning?

    Constellation was no bid, cost plus, behind schedule, over budget and nothing to show for the 13 billion, wasn’t pork? The 250 million dollar competively bid, fixed price, milestone based commercial crew program is pork?

    If that wasn’t so freakin’ sad it would be laughable.

    Since when doesn’t Conservatives want private enterprise?

    U.S. Isn’t Pushing Private Space Effort Hard Enough, Group Says

    ” “I think the philosophy that the only way to space is through NASA’s front door is simply outdated,” said group member Robert S. Walker, a retired congressman (R-Pa.) who chaired the House science committee. “As long as NASA sticks to the idea that their primary goal is to get from Earth to low-Earth orbit, we will have a problem.” “

    Another on point quote:

    ” “One has to look back at the history of exploration worldwide,” said task force member Andrew Langer of the Institute for Liberty, an organization that promotes small government. “State-sponsored exploration always gives way to private-sponsored exploration. It’s the entrepreneurs that always carry it to the next level. And we are at that point now.” “

    Conservative Republicans are the sterotypical pro-business, small government group. But not when it comes to national phallic symbols, in that case we can borrow 43% of the money for the big rocket. Doesn’t matter if we ever actually build it, as long as the rest of the planet knows we are borrowing and spending billions doing it.

  • @Robert G. Oler

    The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100), allowing individuals to travel to large spacious space hotels– if they’re willing to pay the price. The SLS will also give humans easy access to practically every region of cis-lunar space, possibly expanding space tourism all the way to the lunar surface.

    Expanding non-government US commercial enterprises to LEO and to the lunar surface will be good for the US economy and should also make the private manufactures of the SLS system a lot of money.

  • @Marcel F. Williams
    “The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100), allowing individuals to travel to large spacious space hotels– if they’re willing to pay the price. The SLS will also give humans easy access to practically every region of cis-lunar space, possibly expanding space tourism all the way to the lunar surface. “

    Again, the question, “How can SLS be built when Congress will not only not raise NASA’s budget, but actually cut it?”

    You never answered my question. All you did was tell me something I have known for decades, that NASA’s budget is a fraction of 1% of the total budget expenditures.

    And again, getting rid of all expenses related to transport to the ISS and adding it to SLS still won’t get it built anywhere near a reasonable timeline. That’s because the total cost is at least $38 billion! And that is a NASA estimate which are usually notoriously conservative. The independent Booz-Allen estimate will probably show a much higher figure when it is released.

    None of what you claim can possibly be true if SLS is never built. If it can be built with a lower budget than it has now, tell us how. We’re waiting, Marcel.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 7th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    “The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100), allowing individuals to travel to large spacious space hotels– if they’re willing to pay the price. The SLS will also give humans easy access to practically every region of cis-lunar space, possibly expanding space tourism all the way to the lunar surface. ”

    are these the only two reasons that prompt you to want SLS?

    if so then they are as good reasons as bush the last used to invade Iraq…they are all speculation.

    There is no indication that Bigelow would use SLS to launch his large module, much less that anyone would spend any money to put together a “large spacious hotel” at the cost that SLS would require. None

    In addition there is no indication that the US taxpayer is going to pay for a lunar infrastructure of any kind based on SLS cost.

    SLS is the space shuttle on steriods, particularly when it comes to cost.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    =yawn= “For Whom The Downgrade Tolls– It Tolls for Tea.”

    NASA has been a target for rabid, frightened (if not frightening) conservatives wielding budget axes since the Kennedy days. Too bad the more recent wackos didn’t take a few wacks at the phoney math of supply-siders backing Reaganomics for three decades. But then, as Cheney said, ‘Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.’ So after 30 years, we’ve arrived at the Age of Austerity and have to deal with the problem at hand.

    Back in the Apollo days, just after their successful circumlunar flight, Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman, in response to a question from newsman George Herman, told a television audience that the space program was ‘technical life insurance’ for the United States. He was right. and that hasn’t changed. But NASA has. And so have the times The premiums for that ‘technical life insurance’ are getting too costly and Uncle Sam may have to reduce coverage rather than borrow to pay them. Example- $38 billion for a SLS/MPCV program through 2021 is unrealistic and simply too costly in this era. They’ll have to do it for less- maybe $20-25 billion, tops. There in lies the challenge. And if they can’t, then NASA should be shuttered and/or folded into DoD space operations where its assets could be cherry-picked for optimum use.

  • DocM

    I would also point out to Marcel that Tom Mueller’s statements at AIAA, along with Elon’s talk of a staged combustion engine and a major propulsion announcement later this year point towards a Falcon Heavy with a more energetic upper stage than the current plan – so 53 MT may be the first step in an evolution.

  • SpaceColonizer

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 7th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    “The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100), allowing individuals to travel to large spacious space hotels– if they’re willing to pay the price. ” (emphasis mine)

    I realize you’re talking about the individuals being willing to pay the price… but what about the clients who will own the space hotels? How much will NASA be charging Bigelow to launch one of these modules on their $38 billion rocket which is only scheduled to launch once a year? A COST that will be transferred to the prospective owners of those space stations.

    Meanwhile, back in reality where NASA is not a launch service provider to the private sector, Bigelow has announced they are ramping up production of their BA 330 modules (23 metric tons), which can be attached to each other to build greater structures. A Falcon Heavy can lift two of those in a single launch. 4 launches of 8 modules could make a single complex with a total of 2640 cubic meters, about 25% greater than a single BA 2100, and would cost 500 million dollars at the most of SpaceX sticks to it’s advertised pricing. And that launch service will be available in 2-3 years, rather than a decade. Bigelow can give SpaceX or its competitors plenty of launch business with those modules, there is no NEED for Bigelow to focus on a larger payload item that is too expensive to launch in the near future, and it’s a horrible reason to support a government owned/operated rocket. If Bigelow really needs to launch larger payloads to meet the market demand, they should wait for commercial to answer the call rather than rely on a government programs.

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    “The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100), allowing individuals to travel to large spacious space hotels– if they’re willing to pay the price.”

    Actually the 2100 isn’t the largest one he drew up, there is a 3400 also.

    If Bigelow Aerospace needs a super heavy lift then they can goto the marketplace and get bids for launching it. It is not the federal government’s job to run a commercial launch system. That is what the private sector is for. It would be better for the Nation if Bigelow Aerospace contracted for heavy lift and the government pay that launch provider for launching large cargo rather than NASA doing it in-house. BA would get a heavy lift for 10-12 times cheaper than NASA.

  • For some on here, it is simply amazing to see how far they will bend reality to fit their point of view. What is apparent to some is that NASA is a slush fund for some conservative members of the upper chamber and they continue to push for their bailout earmark in America’s darkest fiscal hour.

    It is shameful.

    The comments by Mr. Whittington and others here fail to realize that what we are doing is reaching out to people inside the space community. We are connecting with the boots on the ground inside NASA and our Tea Party grassroots network. Everything we have done to this point would not satisfy the radical fringe here.

    All Americans are interested in our space program. They also know Washington, and by proxy NASA, is broken. There simply don’t believe what NASA is selling. And they should not. SLS is a bailout earmark. Why should they get bailed out when thousands of Americans face foreclosure?

    We don’t want 2032. We don’t want 2021. We are, frankly, angry NASA was mismanaged and created this gap. To be blunt:

    President Obama is not to blame for this.
    President Bush is not to blame for this.

    Bureaucrats inside NASA and the upper chamber have hijacked NASA and we plan to point out, at every turn, just how bad these decision makers are ruining the best space program in the history of mankind.

    We are planning a conference call as we work during this August recess. I hope you all contact your representatives in the house and senate and ask hard questions. I hope you all attend town halls.

    Space is not a democrat issue. Space is not a republican issue. Space is non-partisan, just like the Tea Party in Space.

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

  • Michael from Iowa

    @amightywind
    Its August and NASA news is slow, now that democrats have ended the shuttle program.
    The decision to retire the shuttle program was made in 2004.

  • DCSCA

    @Andrew Gasser wrote @ August 7th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    To paraphase Jimmy Fallon, ‘Thank you, Tea Party, for degrading Uncle Sam. Republicans are rich, but your standards are poor.’

    You’ve damaged America enough. Leave our space program, what’s left of it, alone.

  • josh

    @Marcel

    You’re wrong about sls being the only vehicle able to lift the BA2100. a Falcon Heavy with Raptor upperstage should do the trick.

    @Whittington

    Whatever planet you live on it’s not this one. Must be hard to endure so much cognitive dissonance on a daily basis…

  • Fred Willett

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 7th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    said
    “The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100),…”
    At a recent speech Mr Bigelow noted that George Sowers of ULA had told him they could evolve one of their launchers to carry the BA 2100 for him.
    I would think an upgrade to a ULA vehicle is more likely to happen than the SLS paper rocket.

  • Vladislaw

    DCSCA wrote:

    “Frank Borman, in response to a question from newsman George Herman, told a television audience that the space program was ‘technical life insurance’ for the United States. He was right. and that hasn’t changed. But NASA has. And so have the times The premiums for that ‘technical life insurance’ are getting too costly and Uncle Sam may have to reduce coverage rather than borrow to pay them.”

    I agree and believe NASA started believing it’s own press and refused to let commercial in but guarded spaceflight like an only child.. Technology should have been shoveled over into the private sector and NASA should have just been buying services.

    NASA’s budget is not going to go up and if it does it will only be marginal. The only way to multiple the funds is to start getting private sector capital involved. The private sector put up billion dollar investments without breaking a sweat, NASA needs that additional funding to augment what they want to achieve.

    Andrew Gasser wrote:

    Great points. Are you getting any email or other communications from either congressional staff or NASA personal that express or want the same things you are advocating for?

  • DCSCA

    Vladislaw wrote @ August 7th, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Well, as stated, this writer followed with, ” Example-$38 billion for a SLS/MPCV program through 2021 is unrealistic and simply too costly in this era. They’ll have to do it for less- maybe $20-25 billion, tops. There in lies the challenge.” The prviate sector will never absorb the costs for a space project of scale on that level in this era of human history– and especially in austere times. That’s why governments do it- and have done so in many guises primarily for geo-political motives, not financial profit, over the 80-plus years of modern rocketry. For profit enterprises have cashed in where they could but never have led the way. Witness Goddard, all but starved for funding from private investors, while Von Braun’s research flourished with government backing in Germany in the same era. When the ‘space race’ began and private enterprise had the chance to take the lead, they balked again, allowing government to carry the financial risk, socializing it on the backs of taxpayers rather than stockholders in their firms.

    And, of course, ‘private sector’ HSF operations has had nothing stopping it but the very parameters of the ‘free market’ it wishes to service- high risk, low ROI for a limited market. Profiteers make for poor rocketeers in this era and space exploitation is not space exploration. The most promising venture for commercial HSF in the immediate future is Branson’s Virgin-Galactic sub-orbital jaunts.

  • @Rick Boozer

    “Again, the question, “How can SLS be built when Congress will not only not raise NASA’s budget, but actually cut it?”

    You never answered my question. All you did was tell me something I have known for decades, that NASA’s budget is a fraction of 1% of the total budget expenditures.

    None of what you claim can possibly be true if SLS is never built. If it can be built with a lower budget than it has now, tell us how. We’re waiting, Marcel.”
    **********

    The Senate MPCV/SLS 2012 budget is over $4 billion. Its the crazy House and their Tea Party fringe that’s trying to substantially reduce funding in 2012. But I believe that the Senate will prevail on this issue.

    I should also note that more than $2 billion has already been spent for MPCV development in the form of the Orion vehicle.

    How expensive the SLS is depends on what components you want to develop first or develop at all beyond the LOX/LH2 core booster. The cheapest add on would be the upper stage which NASA usually estimates to cost between $2 to $2.5 billion.

    The most expensive add on would be the 5-segment SRBs which are estimated to cost at least $4 to $5 billion to develop.

    However, you don’t need 5-segment SRBs in order for the SLS to have heavy lift capability. The existing 4-segment SRBs should give the SLS 60 tonne plus to LEO payload capability. And with an upper stage, it should give it nearly 100 tonnes of payload capacity.

    But you could also configure the SLS similar to the Delta IV heavy (3 LOX/LH2 core boosters) which would give it 100 tonnes plus payload capacity with an upper stage. This would be similar to Boeing’s Delta super heavy concept. And Boeing is probably going to be the contractor that’s going to build the SLS.

    You could even use one core vehicle plus the upper stage alone (no SRBs) to transport the MPCV anywhere within cis-lunar space. You could also use a single core vehicle with the MPCV alone to transport the command module into orbit using the Service Module as an upper stage.

    Man-rating a crew launch SLS vehicle with SRBs would probably be more expensive and also with lower safety margins than man-rating an SLS vehicle without SRBs.

    I discussed this on my blog a few weeks ago at:

    http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2007/07/deriving-and-economically-sustainable.html

  • @Rick Boozer

    “And again, getting rid of all expenses related to transport to the ISS and adding it to SLS still won’t get it built anywhere near a reasonable timeline.”

    I didn’t say to get rid of the cost of– getting to– the ISS. I said get rid of the ISS! If NASA ended the $3 billion a year ISS program at the end of 2015 as originally planned, that would give NASA an extra $3 billion a year in beyond Leo funds starting in 2016. Thats $15 billion extra dollars by 2020.

    Unfortunately, Congress is talking about continuing this LEO on steroids program even beyond 2020. So all the talk about commercial crew enabling NASA to focus its budget on beyond LEO missions is largely a bunch of BS.

  • @Robert G. Oler

    “There is no indication that Bigelow would use SLS to launch his large module, much less that anyone would spend any money to put together a “large spacious hotel” at the cost that SLS would require. None

    In addition there is no indication that the US taxpayer is going to pay for a lunar infrastructure of any kind based on SLS cost.

    SLS is the space shuttle on steriods, particularly when it comes to cost.”

    ************

    The recurring cost of the SLS will depend on how frequently its used. If its utilized in an unsustainable manner like the Obama administration wants to use it (once every 4 to 10 years) then its going to be incredibly expensive! But if this reconfigured Shuttle system is used at the frequency of the Space Shuttle (4 to 6 times a year) then the recurring cost (without payload) should be similar to that of the space shuttle program or slightly higher (about $500 million per flight).

    Since Boeing, a major partner of Bigelow, is probably going to develop the SLS, I think they’ll probably use it to place the BA 2100 into orbit possibly through the USA (United Space Alliance or maybe even through the ULA).

    As far as no public support for going to the Moon, the polls continue to show that you’re wrong:

    http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/would-you-support-building-manned

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

  • Terence Clark

    “The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100), allowing individuals to travel to large spacious space hotels– if they’re willing to pay the price.”

    You do know that BA 2100 was designed to fit Constellation, right? In other words the only reason SLS is the only rocket that could lift it is because it was designed for SLS’s (failed) predecessor. Did you also know that Bigelow has discussed a module fit for launch on FHeavy? Bigelow will blueprint a module to fit anything that hits orbit. That’s not a criticism. Bigelow wants to put as many options on the table as he can to increase the chances one sticks. Given the costs of blueprint paper, I’d say keep up the good work.

    “The SLS will also give humans easy access to practically every region of cis-lunar space, possibly expanding space tourism all the way to the lunar surface.”

    I’m having a hard time understanding exactly why no other medium heavy or heavy launch system couldn’t also provide this. Care to elaborate?

  • @ Vladislaw

    “Actually the 2100 isn’t the largest one he drew up, there is a 3400 also.

    If Bigelow Aerospace needs a super heavy lift then they can goto the marketplace and get bids for launching it. It is not the federal government’s job to run a commercial launch system. That is what the private sector is for. It would be better for the Nation if Bigelow Aerospace contracted for heavy lift and the government pay that launch provider for launching large cargo rather than NASA doing it in-house. BA would get a heavy lift for 10-12 times cheaper than NASA.”

    Bigelow will probably already have a partner that’s manufacturing the SLS in Boeing. NASA’s new philosophy is supposed to be to develop space vehicles that can also be utilized by the DOD and private industry. And I think the SLS family of rocket configurations will meet that criteria with either the United Space Alliance or the United Launch Alliance utilizing SLS technology to launch large Bigelow Space stations into orbit.

    But I believe that NASA should be Bigelow’s first customer for the BA 2100. This would also allow the BA 2100 the NASA stamp of approval making this item much more attractive to foreign space programs wanting their own instant space stations.

  • @josh

    “You’re wrong about sls being the only vehicle able to lift the BA2100. a Falcon Heavy with Raptor upperstage should do the trick.”

    The BA-2100 requires an 8 meter payload fairing. The Falcon heavy with a Raptor upper stage would probably have a maximum fairing diameter of only 5 meters.

  • pathfinder_01

    Marcel, 60 tons does not meet the law….and the law states with upper stage should grow to 130s so the first rocket can not meet the law….

    Also the 4 segments ones are not quite exsiting….the tooling was converted to make 5 segment ones for Ares 1 and now will cost money to recovert back. In addition any solid rocket booseter is going to need R/D just changing to the new rocket. The SRB’s were designed with the shuttle(or Ares 1) in mind not SLS. It would be like taking the transmission from your car and installing into a different model of car.

  • The Senate MPCV/SLS 2012 budget is over $4 billion. Its the crazy House and their Tea Party fringe that’s trying to substantially reduce funding in 2012. But I believe that the Senate will prevail on this issue.

    You said yourself, “The Senate MPCV/SLS 2012 budget is over $4 billion. ”
    That’s MPCV/SLS together. Of which the SLS part is around $3 billion and that is what we are discussing.

    According to the new debt ceiling legislation that was just passed, it will not be the “Tea Party fringe” as you say that does the cutting but a bipartisan committee. The new law says that if the committee don’t come to an agreement, mandatory cuts of everything across the board will automatically occur. Even if SLS weren’t cut at all (extremely doubtful because everything else will be) $3 billion per year still won’t give you an SLS on a reasonable time schedule even if you consider a reasonable time schedule to be 8 years.

    I do agree with you though about the advantages of the liquid engines versus SRBs. It gives you some economic advantage but not enough, mainly because only the boosters (and not the entire vehicle) will be competively bid.

  • Aggelos

    “The SLS will be the only vehicle capable of launching Bigelow’s largest commercial space stations (BA 2100),”

    the question is.

    We want a heavy lift,or not?Or we dont want Sls ?
    Elon Musk ays that Hlv is needed and can built a up to 120t to leo Falcon x heavy for 3 bi. in 5 -6 years?with 8 m fairing in his plans,so it can take the BA-2100 inside..

    Nasa wants a Hlv,more than 50-70 t? or not?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 8th, 2011 at 1:10 am

    reoccurring cost are just another phrase for “Marginal cost” and all of them are designed to cover the notion that the vehicle is enormously expensive.

    The shuttle left us with no reason to keep flying it after the federal dollars dried up and SLS would be the same. Sadly for your thoughts its OK…the vehicle will never happen.

    There is no political support for it. Watch

    Robert G. Oler

  • Justin Kugler

    Marcel, with all due respect, you’re still stuck in the old way of thinking where NASA has to design and build its own boosters. The new philosophy is to stop spending so much money getting to orbit that we can’t do anything worthwhile when we get there. That’s what killed Constellation and threatens SLS. NASA should be spending the big money on things like Advanced Exploration Systems and contract out the lift.

  • @Aggelos
    Actually, Elon said he could build an HLV to lift 150mt to LEO, not 120mt and submitted the proposal to NASA with a quoted cost of $2.5 billion. That’s 30mt more to LEO than the maximum payload proposed for SLS for a tiny fraction of even the overall budget assigned by Congress for SLS. You don’t even have to assume SLS will take $38 billion.

    But essentially I agree with you. ULA also claims they can upgrade Atlas and/or Delta for a few billion more than SpaceX and a lot less than the amount budgeted for SLS. So I’m with you, does NASA want an HLV or not?

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    “NASA’s new philosophy is supposed to be to develop space vehicles that can also be utilized by the DOD and private industry. “

    Actually that is not the new philosophy NASA is supposed to be pursuing.

    As per the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA is not supposed to developing new launch capabilities.. AT ALL. NASA is supposed to be a customer of commerical launch systems. NASA was tasked with building a capsule for a EELV. That’s it. NASA was supposed to be pursuing a space based reusable space vehicle and the technology needed to do BEO like the Nautilus X.

  • Spaces

    Question for anyone….
    How much would someone expect the heavy lift vehicle to cost?
    What I mean is how much does the actual rocket cost, just the rocket hardware, engines, fuel, launch pad, ground support equip, etc… No labor/man hours designing/building it but just the pieces/parts nuts/bolts. If it was all just layed out on the floor how much does it cost to purchase?
    I’d love to know this number and then work backwards from there.

  • josh

    Not more than 5 billion if done right. ofc nasa can’t do anything right these days it seems…

  • Vladislaw

    reoccuring costs and non reoccuring costs are like fixed costs and variable costs.

    A fixed or reoccuring cost is the rent, light bill, etc. A variable or non reoccuring cost might be a one time repair or a one time unique part.

    Marginal costs are totally different. Marginal cost are those costs associalted with building one additional widget.

    For NASA fixed costs are way to high, hell they can not afford to keep the assets they have now from deterioting away to rot. NASA’s variable costs ( traditionally labor is the highest variable cost) is also way to high. That is one of the reasons nothing NASA develops for human spaceflight will be affordable. Even if you grant NASA an unlimited budget for a higher flight rate it will still not be affordable because as we have seen, even NASA’s marginal costs never seem to shrink.

  • Vladislaw

    Spaces,

    It really would depend on how big of diameter the core is, bigger equals more costs. How many and type of engines. Off the shelf engines or new? Also, the type of fuel, cryo costs more that just kerosine. It would also depend on the contracting method used, FAR versus a SAA. Also it would matter on how much the parts costs if they are contracted at a fixed cost v.s. cost plus.

    A lot of variables, about the only thing we know for sure is, NASA thinks it will cost 40 billion, SpaceX thinks it should cost 3 billion.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 8th, 2011 at 8:41 am

    ‘There is no political support for it. Watch.’

    Try looking, instead. There’s support– just not at $38 billion.

  • John Malkin

    Miles O’Brien interviewed someone from Lockheed (Maybe someone else saw the interview during Atlantis last launch) but he said they were working with NASA on two missions. The first mission to an asteroid in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe which would use two SLS rockets and a mission to a Mars’ moon would use four SLS rockets by 2030. There is a possibility of two additional missions before 2020 launching Orion MPCV. So that is eight flights of SLS by 2030. He also said that this was assuming a fairly even funding level.

    So I don’t know if the $38 Billion includes payloads for these missions but I expect not. Also no mention of DOD usage.

  • pathfinder_01

    Josh, IMHO Shuttle derived is like turning lead to gold. Here is the thing the parts are not ready to be laid out. It would be like turning a car into a van or truck.

    SSME are reusable not disposable and they are the most expensive rocket engine made(and are not used in any other rocket). They are not a good place to start for a first stage engine. They have high ISP, but their low thrust dooms you to need to add some sort of booster in most shuttle derived vechile(SRBS or something). This adds cost. In addition you probably want to make a disposable version of the shuttle SSME(to save some costs)…still an expensive engine even in disposable form.

    SRB’s are tailored for the shuttle or what ever rocket they are designed for. Any change in vechile(I.e. shuttle to say HLV) will causes changes here(with perhaps the exception of a side mount and side mount has it’s own extra expenses too).

    ET will need to be redesigned(esp. for a inline design) as you will now need to support the weight of stages on top of it.

    Avonics and software will need major changes due to the fact that the many of the avonics are in the shuttle(and now need to be replicated in the new rocket).

    Spacecraft. Shuttle functions as both rocket and spacecraft. If you need a man rated rocket you are going to need a spacecraft and Orion atm is disposable.

    Infrastructure shuttle infrastructure is expensive and not shared with any other rockets and changing from shuttle to HLV may require upgrades.

    And that goes before things like finishing the J2X and so on.

    This does not sound like a 5 billon dollar job to me. The EELV together cost 5 billion, but that was only because the companies in question invested some of their own dollars and I suspect that the EELV were in a better position to upgrade(they atleast where ELV Delta III and Atlas III). Shuttle is trying to turn an uneconomical 25MT to LEO RLV into a 70MT+ HLV.

  • vulture4

    When we were planning to go all over the Solar System anyway and just looking for targets. the Martian moons were quite logical. But now we are cutting taxes with a chainsaw and if we even have the money to study Mars it has to be the least expensive path available, which limits it to robotics, which are at most a tenth the cost of HSF for the same science. Unless you are willing to raise taxes. Who is for that?

    Ironically the conservatives who voted in lockstep fashion for Bush and supported his cancelation of Shuttle and [lack of] Vision for Space Exploration, now are unwilling to pay for it.

  • Egad

    > Also no mention of DOD usage [of SLS]

    Considering that the Senate intelligence committee is questioning the continuing need for Delta IV Heavies, I suspect that, absent some really big surprise, DOD/NRO probably isn’t going to be all that interested in SLS for a while.

  • Egad

    > Ironically the conservatives who voted in lockstep fashion for Bush and supported his cancelation of Shuttle and [lack of] Vision for Space Exploration, now are unwilling to pay for it.

    Now, now. While I’m ordinarily quite happy to bash Bush 43, the VSE of January 2004 really was among the better things he did, even somewhat Presidential in the best sense of the word. Would that it had been followed up effectively.

  • Byeman

    “Since Boeing, a major partner of Bigelow, is probably going to develop the SLS, I think they’ll probably use it to place the BA 2100 into orbit possibly through the USA (United Space Alliance or maybe even through the ULA). ”

    “NASA’s new philosophy is supposed to be to develop space vehicles that can also be utilized by the DOD and private industry. And I think the SLS family of rocket configurations will meet that criteria with either the United Space Alliance or the United Launch Alliance”

    How many times you do have to be told that you are wrong.

    A. Boeing is not major partner of Bigelow. Bigelow and Boeing just have an agreement on crew delivery.

    B. Boeing is not going to develop the SLS. NASA is and it will solicit contractors to provide design and production support. These contractors will not have control of SLS, NASA will.

    c. ULA can not and will not have anything to do with SLS. They are forbidden to.

    d. NASA’s new philosophy is not to develop vehicles for other users. NASA’s new philosophy is to use vehicles develop by other users.

    e. SLS is not for commercial use but only for NASA use.

    read and learn. Forget the all those silly notions you have because they are wrong.

  • Of tangential interest … Aviation Week reports that JAXA envisions crewed flights to ISS by 2025.

    Now, that suggests (1) Japan certainly sees the value in ISS, and (2) believes it will be going strong by the mid-2020s.

    For all the fuss about SLS and a mission beyond Earth orbit, I really think we’re about to enter a new golden era where the ISS will become the hub of global activity in space.

    We have commercial companies investing mostly their own money in commercial cargo and crew vehicles. Boeing is recruiting astronaut pilots for the CST-100 and negotiating to lease OPF-3 at KSC. The SpaceX Dragon will dock at ISS in December, then begin cargo deliveries in 2012 to the ISS.

    Several medical discoveries based on ISS research are already in the pipeline. NASA is using ISS to test concepts like an orbital refueling craft and an orbital fuel depot.

    All the fuss over SLS pork is masking the incredible potential of the ISS. We really should be investing that pork in exploiting ISS to its maximum potential, and in helping Bigelow with the Vectran technology that will one day result in the first private space station.

    Personally, I could do without the stunt of going back to the Moon to get more rocks. The Moon can wait. So much awaits us in low Earth orbit. That’s where the money should go.

  • Rhyolite

    “Of tangential interest … Aviation Week reports that JAXA envisions crewed flights to ISS by 2025.”

    Their concept looks like Dragon.

  • pathfinder_01 wrote @ August 8th, 2011 at 1:51 am

    “Marcel, 60 tons does not meet the law….and the law states with upper stage should grow to 130s so the first rocket can not meet the law….

    Also the 4 segments ones are not quite exsiting….the tooling was converted to make 5 segment ones for Ares 1 and now will cost money to recovert back. In addition any solid rocket booseter is going to need R/D just changing to the new rocket. The SRB’s were designed with the shuttle(or Ares 1) in mind not SLS. It would be like taking the transmission from your car and installing into a different model of car.”

    The law states that 70 tons should be the minimum requirement for the SLS without an upper stage. But, of course, this was so poorly written that its not clear if Congress meant 70 US tons or 70 metric tons (70 tonnes). 70 tons would be about 63 tonnes (63 metric tons).

    Of course, you don’t really need SRBs once you build the LOX/LH2 core vehicle since three of them in a Delta-IV heavy-like configuration should be able to transport more than 70 tons and probably more than 70 tonnes into low Earth orbit.

    But eventually, I wouldn’t mind seeing four 5-segment SRBs used for unmanned heavy lift launches with the SLS LOX/LH2 core vehicle plus an upper stage. That would be one stupendous HLV.

  • @Aggelos

    “the question is.

    We want a heavy lift,or not?Or we dont want Sls ?
    Elon Musk ays that Hlv is needed and can built a up to 120t to leo Falcon x heavy for 3 bi. in 5 -6 years?with 8 m fairing in his plans,so it can take the BA-2100 inside..

    Nasa wants a Hlv,more than 50-70 t? or not?”

    Elon says a lot of things. Plus he’d have to develop a rocket vehicle with core vehicle diameters a lot larger than the Falcon Heavy. But the question is, would you rather trust a reliable rocket company like Boeing to build an HLV for your tax money or would you rather trust an amateur rocket company like Space X to build an HLV.

  • @Robert G. Oler

    reoccurring cost are just another phrase for “Marginal cost” and all of them are designed to cover the notion that the vehicle is enormously expensive.

    The shuttle left us with no reason to keep flying it after the federal dollars dried up and SLS would be the same. Sadly for your thoughts its OK…the vehicle will never happen.

    There is no political support for it. Watch”

    The space shuttle was not discontinued because of cost. It was only a $3 billion dollar a year program. It was discontinued in order to help fund the Constellation program and to be succeeded by the Ares I which Mike Griffin believed would be a much safer crew launch vehicle than the shuttle. But Obama decided to allow the decommissioning of the space shuttle while also discontinuing funding for the Constellation program with nothing to replace it. And he didn’t even try to lower the NASA budget, he tried to increase it!

  • Byeman wrote @ August 8th, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    “Since Boeing, a major partner of Bigelow, is probably going to develop the SLS, I think they’ll probably use it to place the BA 2100 into orbit possibly through the USA (United Space Alliance or maybe even through the ULA). ”

    “NASA’s new philosophy is supposed to be to develop space vehicles that can also be utilized by the DOD and private industry. And I think the SLS family of rocket configurations will meet that criteria with either the United Space Alliance or the United Launch Alliance”

    How many times you do have to be told that you are wrong.

    A. Boeing is not major partner of Bigelow. Bigelow and Boeing just have an agreement on crew delivery.

    B. Boeing is not going to develop the SLS. NASA is and it will solicit contractors to provide design and production support. These contractors will not have control of SLS, NASA will.

    c. ULA can not and will not have anything to do with SLS. They are forbidden to.

    d. NASA’s new philosophy is not to develop vehicles for other users. NASA’s new philosophy is to use vehicles develop by other users.

    e. SLS is not for commercial use but only for NASA use.

    read and learn. Forget the all those silly notions you have because they are wrong.”

    1. NASA doesn’t build rockets, private companies build rockets for NASA. Lockheed is building the MPCV. And Boeing has been the principal advocate for building the SLS. and will probably get the contract to build the SLS including the upper stage.

    2. To quote from NASA itself when it asked for heavy lift proposals back in June of 2010 from private industry “The focus will be on developing affordable system concepts that may be used by multiple entities, such as the Department of Defense, commercial corporations and international space agencies. ”

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jun/HQ_10-147_Heavy_Lift_BAA_prt.htm

    3. Boeing has already conceived crew launch vehicles derived from the SLS that don’t use SRBs

    4. The idea the NASA wouldn’t license the SLS to any private US space company that wanted to use it would be silly since it would substantially reduce the recurring cost of the SLS for NASA and for the tax payers.

  • Justin Kugler

    “Marcel, with all due respect, you’re still stuck in the old way of thinking where NASA has to design and build its own boosters. The new philosophy is to stop spending so much money getting to orbit that we can’t do anything worthwhile when we get there. That’s what killed Constellation and threatens SLS. NASA should be spending the big money on things like Advanced Exploration Systems and contract out the lift.”

    If that were true then NASA would end the $3 billion dollar a year LEO on steroids ISS program so that they could use that money for beyond LEO missions instead of as a hyper expensive work-fare program for commercial crew. Commercial crew should be focusing on space tourism not trying to integrate itself into a wasteful big government program like the ISS. But, on the other hand, most private companies love getting their hands of tax payer dollars:-)

    What killed the Constellation program was the fact that Mike Griffin picked the most expensive architecture possible to get the job done of returning to the Moon instead of the much cheaper alternatives.

    And returning to the Moon to stay should be NASA’s primary focus not some wasteful manned mission to an asteroid which could be done ten times cheaper by an unmanned vehicle.

    The Obama plan for single deep space missions punctuated by 4 to 10 years of no missions at all is both politically and economically unsustainable. And I suspect that his science adviser, Holdren, knows that and is just setting NASA up for deep budget cuts in the future.

  • Byeman

    again, Williams, you aren’t listening and only cherry picking what you want to hear.

    1. NASA is still going to “design” SLS and then let industry build and flight it. Boeing does not have a leg up on the others. Lockheed Martin will fight for a competition. ATK has been more of an advocate for SLS. Also, you are putting too much importance into one Boeing study.

    2. The DOD has no need for HLV and has stated this over and over. Same goes for commercial companies. You are easily swayed by flowery PR prose, and you think it is reality. NASA is not developing vehicles for other users, period. That is from NASA.

    3. the SLS is not going to follow Boeing’s design. That is a given.

    4. A even more sillier notion is thinking that a company would want to license SLS. It won’t happen. SLS will use too many civil servants and NASA facilities to be operated separately from NASA. And there still is you silly notion that there are commercial needs for an HLV.

    read and learn. forget what you think, it is wrong (that is not an opinion, but a fact)

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel wrote:

    “The space shuttle was not discontinued because of cost. It was only a $3 billion dollar a year program. It was discontinued in order to help fund the Constellation program”

    That is not the way it happened. The call for shuttle retirement came in 2004 with the Vision for Space Exploration. There wasn’t a Constellation program at that time. It was still O’Keef and the spiral design with a CEV on a EELV. We also saw the call for a funding of COTS, which included both commercial crew and cargo. It wasn’t until Griffin came in and ordered the ESAS that Constellation was born and COTS-D was shelved.

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel wrote:

    “Commercial crew should be focusing on space tourism”

    See that is where you go off the rails. Commercial crew should be focused on open access to LEO. It does not matter who rides an airline. Government employees, military personal, business people, tourists, or people just flying to grandma’s house. It shouldn’t matter who the customers are. They provide a transportation service to whoever wants to use it. That is what the focus should be, open transportation to ALL potential users.

  • @Marcel Williams
    ” But the question is, would you rather trust a reliable rocket company like Boeing to build an HLV for your tax money or would you rather trust an amateur rocket company like Space X to build an HLV..”
    No Marcel, the true question is, “Do you want an HLV period.” If the answer is yes, then SLS is not the way to go. You completely ignored what I told you about the budget committee mandated by the debt ceiling law, if they don’t reach an agreement by a specified date ALL agencies and programs across the board with NO exceptions will be cut. This has been mandated by law. But even if they do reach an agreement, it’s a certainty that everything will get a hit except possibly Social Security. Yes, you could apply ISS related money to SLS, but the NASA budget WILL be cut. So probably any money added to the SLS budget will only make up for any money taken from the overall NASA budget and thus the SLS budget would not increase and probably decrease.

    The fiscal realities are what they are. Your wishful thinking will not change them. It’s either the competitive commercial route for a super HLV or no HLV at all. Why do even care about having a space program? You’re already living on planet Marcel.

  • Scott Bass

    I have been dismissive of the sls doomsayers ….trying to remain optimistic, however if the time line described in this spaceflightnow article is accurate then I have to say…. Sls-DOA

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/preliminary-nasa-evolved-sls-vehicle-21-years-away/

    If it’s not DOA then it should be… Disappointed

  • Senator Nelson, one of the Senators who instigated SLS, finally admits “we ought to question whether or not we can build the rocket.”
    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-next-moonshot-20110805,0,4257663.story

  • Dennis

    Meanwhile, the push is on to fly ,possibly a man rated, Orion in 2013 aboard a Delta!

  • Senator Nelson, one of the Senators who instigated SLS, finally admits “we ought to question whether or not we can build the rocket.”

    That’s not a recent comment. He said that last year. I haven’t heard him comment lately.

  • Dennis

    I truly do not understand why Congress and the rest, do not just issue an order to utilize existing boosters, of either the Delta and or Atlas to launch Orion on. With this Orion could still push off into deep space, and a new expensive SLS could be shelved. Keep Orion for deep space. Perhaps some of the money from the SLS could build a lander. At any rate we could push on sooner rather than later.

  • John Malkin

    “According to preliminary NASA estimates, it would cost between $17 billion and $22 billion to ready the new rocket and Orion capsule for a test flight in December 2017 that would put an unmanned capsule into a lunar orbit. An additional $12 billion to $16 billion would be needed to launch the first crew on a lunar flyby in August 2021.”

    $29B to $38B for an Apollo 8 type mission, really? I wonder what the cost estimates are for the Asteroid landing or Mars’ moon landing. How could this path lead us to a settlement anywhere in the next 50 years? I love the ~10B range. What is a few Billion between friends? BTW How many large NASA programs have come under budget?

  • I truly do not understand why Congress and the rest, do not just issue an order to utilize existing boosters, of either the Delta and or Atlas to launch Orion on.

    Because it doesn’t maintain enough jobs in the right states and congressional districts.

  • kayawanee

    Dennis wrote @ August 9th, 2011 at 11:32 am
    I truly do not understand why Congress and the rest, do not just issue an order to utilize existing boosters, of either the Delta and or Atlas to launch Orion on.

    That would make far too much sense. I think you overestimate the collective intelligence of, and underestimate the greed for pork of, our elected Congresscritters.

  • Egad

    > I truly do not understand why Congress and the rest, do not just issue an order to utilize existing boosters, of either the Delta and or Atlas to launch Orion on. With this Orion could still push off into deep space, and a new expensive SLS could be shelved.

    It’s quite probable that your second sentence supplies the answer to the question implicit in the first sentence. See various discussions about SLS and pork.

  • @Rand Simberg
    “That’s not a recent comment. He said that last year. I haven’t heard him comment lately.”
    My bad, Rand. That’s what I get for skimming over an article when I’m crunched for time.

  • amightywind

    I have been dismissive of the sls doomsayers

    And so you should continue to be. We are asking to same people who sabotaged Constellation to design and build…Constellation! Its not going to happen. SLS won’t be built until NASA has new leadership that is willing to divert resources from the rest of the agency and drop non-core programs. The budget could stay flat and we can keep the HSF exploration mission. That $3 billion/yr being wasted on ISS is a good place to start.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Let’s see. ATK has its 5 seg tooling in place, and 1 successful test firing of a 5 seg SR grain. They’ve managed to line up Ariane for an upper stage. Their delaying actions have been successful to date.

    At this point they have managed to convince many people, if not a majority of those not knowledgeable, that Obama killed NASA, not they and Griffin. Most people do not know of Obama’s goal of a manned mission to as asteroid; most of them think that it is worthless; most have no idea where that goal came from, nor where it is supposed to lead.

    Let us assume that the GOP and the neocons take the White House, or they maintain control of the House in 2012.

    Then obviously ATK will try to bring Ares1 back to life, using the capsule as designed.

    They will have fought a successful delaying action for 4 years.

    The launchers available in 2022 will be
    1) Ares 1
    2) Atlas with ATK strap ons (baring an aerojet win)
    3) Falcon Heavy

    So a maximum 1 launch payload will then be around 50-60 tons.

    Anyone here have the lunar orbit payload masses of those handy?
    That is useful payload, after engine, prop and fuel masses?

  • Scott Bass

    Agreed Dennis, if this schedule is truly the best they can do for sls then utilizing what we have now sounds like the best way forward, unfortunately congress would not simply reappropriate the money for a lander or other mission specific programs….. The more likely scenario would be a major defunding of NASA …. The only thing I can think of that would stop that is leadership of string specific goals with deadlines….. Obama will not do that and it does not look like any of the current presidential contenders will either…… This at a time where even basic infrastructure spending is a hard sell

  • @Byeman

    “again, Williams, you aren’t listening and only cherry picking what you want to hear.

    1. NASA is still going to “design” SLS and then let industry build and flight it. Boeing does not have a leg up on the others. Lockheed Martin will fight for a competition. ATK has been more of an advocate for SLS. Also, you are putting too much importance into one Boeing study.

    2. The DOD has no need for HLV and has stated this over and over. Same goes for commercial companies. You are easily swayed by flowery PR prose, and you think it is reality. NASA is not developing vehicles for other users, period. That is from NASA.

    3. the SLS is not going to follow Boeing’s design. That is a given.

    4. A even more sillier notion is thinking that a company would want to license SLS. It won’t happen. SLS will use too many civil servants and NASA facilities to be operated separately from NASA. And there still is you silly notion that there are commercial needs for an HLV.

    read and learn. forget what you think, it is wrong (that is not an opinion, but a fact)”

    ************

    Lockheed has its hands full with trying to develop the MPCV and not being embarrassed when Boeing presents its superior design, the reusable CST-100, which actually is more Orion-like with its crew capacity and ability to land on land than Lockheed’s concept.

    Even though Lockheed was the contractor for the shuttle external tank, Boeing has much more experience in developing hydrogen first stage rockets than Lockheed. So I would be shocked if Lockheed got the contract. However, I would not be surprised if Lockheed got the contract for the LOX/LH2 upper stage. But since Boeing was already working on the upper stage for the Ares I, I think it would be simpler to allow Boeing to develop both.

    After the first shuttle disaster, NASA has been pretty much banned from doing launches for private companies. Congress could reverse that which would place NASA into the commercial launch business. But I strongly suspect that an entity like the United Space Alliance or the ULA will be allowed to conduct such SLS launches for companies like Bigelow.

    And, again, the SLS would be the only rocket out there capable of launching Bigelow’s largest space stations into orbit.

  • Spaces

    What I was getting at with my cost question is that if we know the hardware will cost 2 billion or 10 billion (Doesn’t matter) and we know how many people work on the project at “X” salary a year we can determine if NASA’s numbers are totally B/S.
    There should only be 2 parts involved in the equation, the cost of the rocket itself and the cost of the man hours to build it and it’s support equipment. NASA has just laid off a TON of shuttle workers. How many are left that would work on the SLS?

    So if we knew the hardware cost for example; 2 billion and it took 6 years to build and design it with 2,000 people working on everything from the GSE, pads, rocket, etc… what would that labor cost be and does it equal the amount that Bolden is throwing out there?

    A guy can tell me it would cost me a thousand dollars to mow my yard but I know it really costs say 50 dollars. Is Bolden saying it will cost 38 billion when he knows it will really only cost let’s say 10 billion just because he doesn’t want SLS? That is what I suspect but if we had numbers it would be much easier to prove/disprove. I want to know the breakdown of the 38 billion, that’s all! Tell us Bolden, details please.

  • @Vladislaw

    “That is not the way it happened. The call for shuttle retirement came in 2004 with the Vision for Space Exploration. There wasn’t a Constellation program at that time. It was still O’Keef and the spiral design with a CEV on a EELV. We also saw the call for a funding of COTS, which included both commercial crew and cargo. It wasn’t until Griffin came in and ordered the ESAS that Constellation was born and COTS-D was shelved.”

    I didn’t know that. But policies change with new administrations. And they’ll also change after President Obama is out of office especially since his space policies are both politically and economically unsustainable.

  • amightywind

    Let us assume that the GOP and the neocons take the White House, or they maintain control of the House in 2012.

    I think the Senate is very much at risk for the dems. 23 of them are up for election, many are vulnerable. The Presidency is the real widlcard, but the odds there get better for the GOP everyday as well. The GOP could run the table. Could be NASA nirvana…

    Then obviously ATK will try to bring Ares1 back to life, using the capsule as designed.

    Much as I’d like to see it, I think it is more likely you will see a Direct variant launch Orion. It depends on who is the next administrator is. Mike Griffin is available. It will be important for that person to implement a 4 year program and get some dem support, so that the program that will prove durable to changes in political leadership, like the shuttle. Obama’s failure was that he he desired radical change, dithered for a year, and did not consult with congress.

  • @Vladislaw

    “See that is where you go off the rails. Commercial crew should be focused on open access to LEO. It does not matter who rides an airline. Government employees, military personal, business people, tourists, or people just flying to grandma’s house. It shouldn’t matter who the customers are. They provide a transportation service to whoever wants to use it. That is what the focus should be, open transportation to ALL potential users.”

    That’s like saying the US military should only fly on planes or sail on ships operated by private companies (Blackwater on steroids:-). The US government has a totally different agenda in space than private industry. And continuing the $3 billion a year ISS program as make-work for the commercial crew program will actually hurt NASA’s ability to fund beyond LEO programs– not help it.

    There’s also no evidence that privately operated companies like the ULA have lowered the cost of sending unmanned government satellites into orbit.

    Private companies have no loyalty to the United States or to the American people. They don’t move their companies to China to help the American people. They do that to help themselves! Their loyalty is to profit– and that’s the way it should be as long as they make products that people want and the US government can get its share of the revenue through taxes.

    But the US government’s loyalty is to the American people. So the US government should always have the ability to access orbit on its own. Who knows who these international space companies will be owned by or loyal too. They could end up being predominantly owned by the ruling oligarchy in Beijing. I’ve already seen US companies propagandize for the ruling oligarchy in China and even turn over the names of Chinese citizens who criticize the ruling oligarchy.

    Turning over access to the New Frontier completely to private companies would be like Jefferson turning over the Louisiana territories completely to private companies. This anti-government extremist Tea Party philosophy wouldn’t even be good for private space companies who have benefited enormously from the hundreds of billions of tax payer investments in space technology. In fact, most of the concepts and technologies used by these new space companies come from NASA.

    We need a government space program to pioneer the solar system and we need private, profit based, space programs to commercialize and industrialize the solar system. Both are mutually beneficial to each other and to the American people.

  • @Rick Boozer

    “No Marcel, the true question is, “Do you want an HLV period.” If the answer is yes, then SLS is not the way to go. You completely ignored what I told you about the budget committee mandated by the debt ceiling law, if they don’t reach an agreement by a specified date ALL agencies and programs across the board with NO exceptions will be cut. This has been mandated by law. But even if they do reach an agreement, it’s a certainty that everything will get a hit except possibly Social Security. Yes, you could apply ISS related money to SLS, but the NASA budget WILL be cut. So probably any money added to the SLS budget will only make up for any money taken from the overall NASA budget and thus the SLS budget would not increase and probably decrease.

    The fiscal realities are what they are. Your wishful thinking will not change them. It’s either the competitive commercial route for a super HLV or no HLV at all. Why do even care about having a space program? You’re already living on planet Marcel.

    ********
    First of all, there already is competitive bidding for space craft built for NASA. One of the most famous quotes was from Wally Shirra when asked what went through his mind as he waited atop the 95-foot Atlas rocket for liftoff, Schirra replied with a grin: “You think, all these hundreds of thousands of parts were put together by the lowest bidder.”

    The idea that government can’t ever do anything right and only private companies can do anything good is just right wing Tea Party extremist propaganda. Most of these companies only exist because of the hundreds of billions of tax payer money invested in space technology over the past 60 years.

  • Alan

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ August 9th, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    They will have fought a successful delaying action for 4 years.

    The launchers available in 2022 will be
    1) Ares 1
    2) Atlas with ATK strap ons (baring an aerojet win)
    3) Falcon Heavy

    You mean “Liberty” not “ARES 1″.
    Atlas V uses Aerojet SRMs

  • vulture4

    Vladislaw wrote:

    The call for shuttle retirement came in 2004 with the Vision for Space Exploration. There wasn’t a Constellation program at that time. It was still O’Keefe and the spiral design with a CEV on a EELV..

    O’Keefe clearly names Constellation in January 2004 when Shuttle was cancelled, although there are few details. I assume Griffin was pulling the strings even then.

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/11/after-bush-cancelled-space-shuttle.html

  • E.P. Grondine

    To sum up, so far NASA has spent $13 Billion for a 5 seg first stage.

    Unless (and even if) 73P turns into magic comet dust, a goal in space has already been decided upon by a higher power than that of the President, the Congress, and even ATK.

  • Marcel wrote: I didn’t know that.

    That is basic history, known to anyone who has actually followed events for the past few years. Now consider all the other things that you don’t know, which you demonstrate with every comment.

  • Vladislaw

    vulture4,

    Thanks for the link

    Clark said this on that blog post:

    ” I’ll note, though, that the Crew Exploration Vehicle in O’Keefe’s chart did not become Ares I/Orion until after Griffin arrived in 2005.”

    I do not recall O’Keefe or the Administration using Constellation as the program name that early, could you provide a link for the quote by O’Keefe, I couldn’t locate it.

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel wrote:

    “The idea that government can’t ever do anything right and only private companies can do anything good is just right wing Tea Party extremist propaganda. Most of these companies only exist because of the hundreds of billions of tax payer money invested in space technology over the past 60 years.”

    Rick was not talking about the government doing anything right or wrong. He was pointing out the reallity of the current budget environment.

    I agree, the Nation has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in space technology. But you have to remember, the days of NASA having rooms full of engineers with slide rules crunching numbers is over. The collective institutional knowledge that America now holds means that a smart guy with a good laptop and software can crank out data at the speed of light that would have taken NASA weeks to do.

    The idea that NASA has to do basic rocket design today after 60 years of investment is just plain silly. NASA’s engineers should be at the cutting edge creating the tools and systems for tomorrow’s commercial firms.

    At at time when America needs private sector jobs NASA should be an engine of job creation by priming the pump and shoveling technology out to America companies at a breakneck speed. Spending 40 billion on a heavy lift rocket that the private sector can do for 1/10th the cost is a crime against the American people.

    The business of America is business. Without them we starve. I would like to believe congress will wake up and finally remove the roadblocks for American entrepreneurial capitalism to move into the spaceflight sector. NASA can be that engine if they will only let go of the past and move into the 21st century.

  • pathfinder_01

    Spaces the shuttle workforce was about 10-20,000 people. ULA has about 3,000 and space X around 1,500. If you use technology that requires 10,000 people you can not get much savings. Here is what CXP would have done work force wise and why shuttle derived is a bad idea.
    http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/nasa_transition_report0308.pdf

    In 2013 you still need 17,000 people roughly to launch Ares 1! A 20-30MT rocket that is more than four times ULA to get something in the Delta IV heavy class! If these parts need this many people to run space will forever be locked into a high cost mode that does not stimulate growth. In fact the net loss from transitioning from shuttle to CXP was only $4,000.

  • @Spaces

    “A guy can tell me it would cost me a thousand dollars to mow my yard but I know it really costs say 50 dollars. Is Bolden saying it will cost 38 billion when he knows it will really only cost let’s say 10 billion just because he doesn’t want SLS? That is what I suspect but if we had numbers it would be much easier to prove/disprove. I want to know the breakdown of the 38 billion, that’s all! Tell us Bolden, details please.”

    I still don’t understand what all of the fuss is about. After the shuttle program, funding for the Constellation program was scheduled to increase to more than $5.5 billion annually. And those funds were solely for Ares I and Orion development.

    Now all of a sudden $3.8 billion a year is too much to bear for a full man-rated heavy lift vehicle? Of course, maybe we could put that money into Medicare and Medicaid funding. $3.8 billion could fund those hyper expensive and extremely wasteful Federal programs for about two days. I wonder what most people think would be the better investment:-)

  • Earth to Planet Marcel
    “The idea that government can’t ever do anything right and only private companies can do anything good is just right wing “

    If you think I was saying that, you are even more delusional than I thought. Vladislaw was right. What I was saying is that the money won’t be there to pay for SLS for the legal reasons I stated. So if NASA want an HLV then the old way has to go, because the NEW commercial paradigm is the only way you’ll get it within budget.

    “there already is competitive bidding for space craft built for NASA. “

    With cost-pllus contracting with contractors being paid whether they deliver or not. There was no incentive for them to keep costs below the low bid price they won the contract with. The government paid the whole bill, rather than the commercial companies paying part of the development costs as SpaceX, Orbital, Sierra Nevada, etc. do. They’ve got their own money in the game. The new way is the company is given a series of milestones and the government pays NOTHING unless they until they accomplish a milestone.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Alan –

    Thanks for that info on the Atlas solid boosters – hell, I thought the use of them was still in the design stage

    AW –

    Do you think that the initial demands for the NASA records started when they first got wind of the $38 billion estimate?

    As far as Obama goes, Gration probably would have made a good Administrator, and DIRECT would have been underway.
    Care to explain why and how his nomination was blocked?

    It looks to me like after that Obama then tried to go to a variant of Aldrin’s liquid flyback system – which also died.

    As far as communication about manned space goals by Obama, it has been very weak.

    Even though he has stated a course, few here understand it. It appears to be different than their pre-conceived notions.

    Back to the technicals. How much mass will those launchers be able to send towards the Moon?

  • Shaggy

    “To sum up, so far NASA has spent $13 Billion for a 5 seg first stage.

    Unless (and even if) 73P turns into magic comet dust, a goal in space has already been decided upon by a higher power than that of the President, the Congress, and even ATK.”

    Wow, truly an uninformed soul…

  • Vladislaw wrote @ August 9th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Marcel wrote:

    “The idea that government can’t ever do anything right and only private companies can do anything good is just right wing Tea Party extremist propaganda. Most of these companies only exist because of the hundreds of billions of tax payer money invested in space technology over the past 60 years.”

    Rick was not talking about the government doing anything right or wrong. He was pointing out the reallity of the current budget environment.

    I agree, the Nation has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in space technology. But you have to remember, the days of NASA having rooms full of engineers with slide rules crunching numbers is over. The collective institutional knowledge that America now holds means that a smart guy with a good laptop and software can crank out data at the speed of light that would have taken NASA weeks to do.

    The idea that NASA has to do basic rocket design today after 60 years of investment is just plain silly. NASA’s engineers should be at the cutting edge creating the tools and systems for tomorrow’s commercial firms.

    At at time when America needs private sector jobs NASA should be an engine of job creation by priming the pump and shoveling technology out to America companies at a breakneck speed. Spending 40 billion on a heavy lift rocket that the private sector can do for 1/10th the cost is a crime against the American people.

    The business of America is business. Without them we starve. I would like to believe congress will wake up and finally remove the roadblocks for American entrepreneurial capitalism to move into the spaceflight sector. NASA can be that engine if they will only let go of the past and move into the 21st century.

    *******

    $3.8 billion a year to fund the SLS is a lot cheaper than the $5.5 billion a year that was originally scheduled to fund the Constellation program.

    NASA is helping to fund commercial crew. But it would be nice if private investors would also invest some of the two trillion dollars that they’re currently sitting on. But maybe the Federal government is a lot smarter than private investors on this matter:-)

    NASA already asked private companies for their ideas on heavy lift. But Obama is holding up a decision on which idea and which contractors should get the job because he and Holdren really don’t want NASA to have a heavy lift vehicle. They’re hoping that if they can keep delaying funding for the SLS so that eventually a private company will develop an HLV on their own or perhaps Congress will become so frustrated with the delays that they’ll just give up. But its pretty clear that Obama does not want a manned space program for the Federal government and probably cynically views the Apollo program as a wasteful technological stunt to win bragging rights over the Soviets.

    The government’s investment in space has been relatively tiny compared to other Federal expenditures. But its positive impact on our economy has been enormous. Even the Chinese recognize this which is why they’ve started their own government space program.

    At one point, the NASA budget represented nearly 5% of Federal expenditures, yet it is one of the few government programs that has continued to decline as a percentage of total government expenditures and now represents less than 0.6% of Federal expenditures and in today’s dollars is spending almost half as much as it was during the middle 1960s. I wish we could say the same for most other Federal programs!

    Trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs won’t help private space programs, it will only hurt them. In fact it already has. The commercial crew program would probably be receiving a lot more funding from Congress if some of the commercial crew advocates hadn’t tried to spin the commercial crew program into an anti-government and anti-NASA program. And trying use the ISS as corporate welfare for these companies is an extremely bad idea for NASA and for the tax payers.

    The only words that should be coming out of the mouths of the private commercial crew companies is– Bigelow! In less than 20 years, the launch rate for space tourism to private space stations through private commercial companies is going to dwarf NASA’s government related activities– largely thanks to NASA!

  • Robert G. Oler

    meanwhile in the real world Space X keeps moving forward with its rendezvous with both destiny and the ISS (and destiny there as well)

    http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=With+NASA+grounding+shuttle,+SpaceX+and+Central+Texas+take+lead+in+space+exploration+|+Wacotrib.com&urlID=458026987&action=cpt&partnerID=986883&cid=127079898&fb=Y&url=http://www.wacotrib.com/opinion/columns/sandrasanchez/With-NASA-grounding-shuttle-SpaceX-and-Central-Texas-take-lead-in-space-exploration.html

    Go SpaceX RGO

  • Rhyolite

    “The idea that government can’t ever do anything right and only private companies can do anything good is just right wing Tea Party extremist propaganda.”

    NASA does some great exploration – JPL is the best in the world – just not the kind of exploration that involves people. HSF has long since devolved into a pork distribution mechanism and is overdue for a major overhaul.

    “Most of these companies only exist because of the hundreds of billions of tax payer money invested in space technology over the past 60 years.”

    That’s a good thing. We want to see NASA develop high risk technologies and transfer them to industry. Basic launch services are one of the things industry can do well. Having NASA do it sucks up resources that could be use for actual technology development and exploration.

  • Space Coast Rep. Bill Posey appeared yesterday at the monthly luncheon of the National Space Club.

    Click here for the Florida Today report.

    Posey has Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in his district. KSC is within the district of Rep. Sandy Adams, who was also scheduled to appear, but she no-showed. (I’m not surprised …)

    One passage I found interesting was an admission that most of Congress doesn’t care about NASA:

    There are only a few dozen House members committed to the cause of human spaceflight, by Posey’s reckoning, with “a whole lot more that we need to transform or convert.”

    As I’ve written ad nauseam, the only members of Congress who care about NASA are those with space centers or space contractors in their districts. The rest don’t care and probably view NASA as pork. So don’t think NASA will survive whole the oncoming budget cuts.

  • @Planet Marcel
    “$3.8 billion a year to fund the SLS is a lot cheaper than the $5.5 billion a year that was originally scheduled to fund the Constellation program. “

    Did you read for comprehension anything I wrote in my last two comments? The 3.8 billion will not be there and not because government run programs cannot do anything right, but because of the debt ceiling legislation. You are so naive and determined to stay that way. Even if the $3.8 billion was not cut (no way), it still would not give you the SLS in a reasonable amount of time.

    ” But Obama is holding up a decision on which idea and which contractors should get the job because he and Holdren really don’t want NASA to have a heavy lift vehicle. “

    This is a lie. I don’t know whether it’s an intentional lie, but still a lie. The original Obama plan was presented with an HLV included in the mix. It’s just that it was to be developed at a more gradual pace simultaneously with supporter technologies such as fuel depots, deep spacecraft to fly on the HLV, and landers. Also with competitive HLV designs from different companies. Instead certain members of Congress bullied the SLS program into existance to employ the shuttle workers in their constiuencies.

    “The only words that should be coming out of the mouths of the private commercial crew companies is– Bigelow! In less than 20 years, the launch rate for space tourism to private space stations through private commercial companies is going to dwarf NASA’s government related activities– largely thanks to NASA!”

    Those essentally are our words, except we say Bigelow 5 years. And yes, partially thanks to NASA. Do you not understand anything?

  • BTW. In the above comment, when I say “our” I mean individual supporters of the private commercial effort. But that also applies the the private commercial companies themselves.

  • After the shuttle program, funding for the Constellation program was scheduled to increase to more than $5.5 billion annually. And those funds were solely for Ares I and Orion development.

    Yes, that would have been a massive waste of money, had it actually happened. Sadly, it wasn’t canceled soon enough to prevent the waste of many billion over the past few years.

    Now all of a sudden $3.8 billion a year is too much to bear for a full man-rated heavy lift vehicle? Of course, maybe we could put that money into Medicare and Medicaid funding. $3.8 billion could fund those hyper expensive and extremely wasteful Federal programs for about two days. I wonder what most people think would be the better investment:-)

    This is a logical fallacy called a false choice. What a shock to see logical fallacies coming from you. The better investment is to have NASA stop wasting money doing something at which it has demonstrated for half a century that it sucks — building cost-effective launch systems.

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel wrote:

    “$3.8 billion a year to fund the SLS is a lot cheaper than the $5.5 billion a year that was originally scheduled to fund the Constellation program.”

    Yes that is true, and funding a commercial firm for 3 billion ONE TIME is a lot cheaper that funding 3.8 billion for 10 years.

  • This is a lie. I don’t know whether it’s an intentional lie, but still a lie.

    There is no such thing as an unintentional lie — that’s an oxymoron. You mean it’s a falsehood.

  • common sense

    @ Scott Bass wrote @ August 9th, 2011 at 10:01 am

    “I have been dismissive of the sls doomsayers ….trying to remain optimistic, however if the time line described in this spaceflightnow article is accurate then I have to say…. Sls-DOA”

    No I don’t think you tried to remain optimistic, sorry. You, but not only you, are (were?) trying to not face the reality. And the reality will face you and I and the others pretty soon yet again.

    The problem with this: We could have been ready, at least ready-er. Fortunately some people saw the letters on the wall earlier than you did and maybe, just maybe, we will be able to weather the upcoming storm without too much damage.

    Then again we could still demand an SLS and put our heads back in the sand. See what happens then.

  • @ Rand Simberg
    “There is no such thing as an unintentional lie — that’s an oxymoron. You mean it’s a falsehood.”

    OK, noted.

  • Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 10th, 2011 at 6:48 am

    As I’ve written ad nauseam, the only members of Congress who care about NASA are those with space centers or space contractors in their districts. The rest don’t care and probably view NASA as pork. So don’t think NASA will survive whole the oncoming budget cuts.

    I can tell you that there is a very serious push inside the Tea Party caucus to change this. Now, space is a tier two or three issue; however I would submit every staffer I have talked to has incredible interest in American human space flight. Some are not in space states or districts and have asked for additional visits and information. We are providing that.

    Half the problem is who is feeding who information. Some people are pro SLS and some are pro commercial space. We just want competition with SLS and commercial crew.

    Everyone knows the next time an American rides into space, it will be on either a ULA rocket or a Dragon. MPCV does not have a rocket to ride… with humans. There are so many competing interests on the Hill. I value the time I have been able to spend with all the staffs and members.

    The Tea Party will be very active in our nation’s space Endeavour(s). There is so much more to come. We need to organize much better than we are now… and we will.

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

  • Rick Boozer wrote @ August 10th, 2011 at 9:14 am

    @Planet Marcel
    “$3.8 billion a year to fund the SLS is a lot cheaper than the $5.5 billion a year that was originally scheduled to fund the Constellation program. “

    Did you read for comprehension anything I wrote in my last two comments? The 3.8 billion will not be there and not because government run programs cannot do anything right, but because of the debt ceiling legislation. You are so naive and determined to stay that way. Even if the $3.8 billion was not cut (no way), it still would not give you the SLS in a reasonable amount of time.

    ” But Obama is holding up a decision on which idea and which contractors should get the job because he and Holdren really don’t want NASA to have a heavy lift vehicle. “

    This is a lie. I don’t know whether it’s an intentional lie, but still a lie. The original Obama plan was presented with an HLV included in the mix. It’s just that it was to be developed at a more gradual pace simultaneously with supporter technologies such as fuel depots, deep spacecraft to fly on the HLV, and landers. Also with competitive HLV designs from different companies. Instead certain members of Congress bullied the SLS program into existance to employ the shuttle workers in their constiuencies.

    “The only words that should be coming out of the mouths of the private commercial crew companies is– Bigelow! In less than 20 years, the launch rate for space tourism to private space stations through private commercial companies is going to dwarf NASA’s government related activities– largely thanks to NASA!”

    Those essentally are our words, except we say Bigelow 5 years. And yes, partially thanks to NASA. Do you not understand anything?

    @Rick Boozer

    Please! The Obama administration didn’t want to immediately develop a heavy lift vehicle. This was forced on them by Congress. And they’ve been fighting it ever since with delay after delay after delay of something that has been studied to death over the past 20 years.

    A reduced NASA budget actually hurts other NASA programs a lot more than it would the SLS since Congress clearly believes that the manned space program should have priority in funding. For instance, the James Webb telescope was sacrificed rather than the SLS in the House.

    I do find the fact that your an apologist for the Obama administration’s politically and economically unsustainable space policies– amusing:-)

  • @ Planet Marcel
    “Please! The Obama administration didn’t want to immediately develop a heavy lift vehicle.”

    Only true to a certain extent. An HLV was called for in the administration plan, but instead of doing a crash project to keep the maximum number of shuttle employees working, the best of several alternatives was to be chosen. You SLS people are like spoiled brats screaming at the top of your lungs, “I want my HLV and I want it NOW!!!” The irony is that in your pursuit of instant gratificaton, though you can start it now, it would actually take longer to develop than the alternative because Congress will not allocate enough money to get it done in a timely manner. Try thinking multiple steps ahead instead of just one.

    “A reduced NASA budget actually hurts other NASA programs a lot more than it would the SLS since Congress clearly believes that the manned space program should have priority in funding. For instance, the James Webb telescope was sacrificed rather than the SLS in the House.”

    Notice even Rep. Posey is now saying Commercial Crew is essential. If such an adamant former opponent of CC is saying that now, what does that tell you? You can claim all you want that the new NASA cost estimate is soley a political ploy by Bolden and Garver. But if the independent Booz-Allen study finds that SLS costs as much or even more than the NASA study indicates, you will find Congressional politicians abandoning the SLS ship in droves (except for some with major SLS contracts in their constituencies).

    “I do find the fact that your an apologist for the Obama administration’s politically and economically unsustainable space policies– amusing:-)”
    May I remind you that the use of EELV commercial launchers was first proposed in the VSE under the Bush administration. Griffin chose to ignore it. The only apologist of the two of us is you in regard to SLS and its continuation of the failed Constellation mentality.

  • A reduced NASA budget actually hurts other NASA programs a lot more than it would the SLS since Congress clearly believes that the manned space program should have priority in funding.

    If they really believed that, they wouldn’t be insisting that NASA waste so much time and money on SLS.

  • Martijn Meijering

    We just want competition with SLS and commercial crew.

    There should be no SLS at all, merely competing its components would still be a gigantic waste of taxpayers’ money even if you do support manned exploration. Even supporting manned exploration goes against Tea Party principles, but SLS should be totally unacceptable. If you support manned exploration, then you should support competitive procurement of the launch services for the payloads it would carry, which would be mostly propellant.

    Any support for SLS goes completely against Tea Party principles.

  • Vladislaw

    “An HLV was called for in the administration plan, but instead of doing a crash project to keep the maximum number of shuttle employees working, the best of several alternatives was to be chosen.”

    That point was actually even clarified by Administrator Bolden. He specifically stated the President said NO LATER than 2015 for a decision on a HLLV. Wasn’t the heavy lift also predicated on a new large, domestic RP-1/LOX engine? Develop the engine first, along with some additional technology for 3-4 years then do a competitve bid for the launch vehicle that was sized towards predetermined payloads. Something the new direction by the senate doesn’t take into account at all.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 10th, 2011 at 12:59 am
    “meanwhile in the real world Space X keeps moving forward with its rendezvous with both destiny and the ISS (and destiny there as well)

    Go SpaceX…”

    Real world of paper Dragons and press release space programs.
    Ugh. SpaceX go no place fast. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Real commercial rockets and spacecraft going through mission testing is far more real than anything NASA has going right now.

    Anyone seen an SLS being built?

    Anyone seen an MPCV fly yet?

    But that’s OK, since nothing you say seems to come true anyways, and companies like SpaceX and Boeing will keep doing things that prove you wrong… ;-)

Leave a Reply to josh 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>