Congress, NASA

Perlmutter: Progress failure is reason to expedite MPCV

Last week, the failure of a Soyuz rocket carrying a Progress cargo spacecraft to the ISS, thus raising the risk the Soyuz crewed spacecraft could be grounded for an extended period, prompted one member of Congress to call for “emergency” funding for NASA’s commercial crew development efforts, while another argued that NASA should accelerate work on the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. Now another member of Congress has weighed in with yet another take on the failure.

“The recent orbit miscalculation [on a Proton launch] and Soyuz failure reinforce the necessity to expedite design and production of the next generation of NASA space flight,” wrote Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) in a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden on Tuesday. While making a passing reference to heavy-lift vehicle development, his focus is on the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) spacecraft. Arguing that American astronauts should fly to space on American vehicles, he writes, “To this point the Orion Space Capsule demonstrated exemplary safety and functionality.” And, he adds, “investment in this next generation of space travel provides a significant number of jobs to people in Colorado and a positive impact to our nation’s fragile economy.” Lockheed Martin is developing Orion in the Denver area, and some of those working on it are likely his constituents.

He makes no mention of commercial crew development in the letter, claiming that “NASA astronauts will be entirely reliant on Russian space technology and vehicles to conduct our space operations until the new Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle is complete.” That omission is curious as one of the four CCDev-2 companies, Sierra Nevada Corporation, is working on its Dream Chaser vehicle in the Denver suburbs.

90 comments to Perlmutter: Progress failure is reason to expedite MPCV

  • Vladislaw

    ” “To this point the Orion Space Capsule demonstrated exemplary safety and functionality.” And, he adds, “investment in this next generation of space travel provides a significant number of jobs to people in Colorado and a positive impact to our nation’s fragile economy.” “

    It has demonstrated exemplary safety .. on the ground… whew! That is great to know, the orion hasn’t killed anyone on the ground yet.

    How about orbiting earth? How has it functioned in Earth’s orbit? Oh it hasn’t even flown yet. Does it have a human rated rocket ready to launch it? Oh it hasn’t got a rocket yet.

    How about commerical space, have they orbited anything yet?

  • Curtis Quick

    Oink, oink. How much is the respected legislator from Colorado being paid to say this? Surely he would not say this, knowing everyone would see through it, without substantial contributions to his re-election fund by LM. My how the pork shows it’s power over rational thought!

  • Beanie

    And when will mpcv be ready to fly and we apparently need it – oh shucks,like now! Bit of a disconnect isn’t there. Guess reality doesn’t count and logic isn’t his strong suit.

  • ““investment in this next generation of space travel provides a significant number of jobs to people in Colorado “
    The real reason lies buried among the camouflage. He doesn’t give a damn about what is good for the country as a whole.

  • Dennis

    Alright guys, would you rather see us continue to pay Russia for taking us to the ISS, or push the Orion derived vehicle to the next level? I think that the Orion vehicle has been tested with its abort system from a ground launch. Next is NASAs plans for a Florida launch, with abort system, carrying the vehicle out into the Atlantic and a water splash down. I truly hope SpaceX wlll succeed too, but remember we must have many options, including the Orion derived vehicle.. Also since the cause of the Russian failure has been identified, I dont see the station being abandoned any time soon, and Russian missions startingup again.

  • amightywind

    Clearly Orion must be put on the fast track. What further demonstration do we need of the foolhardiness of our reliance on Russia? Even if we fast track Orion we will be lucky if there is still an ISS to visit. No mention of ‘commercial development’? Good, sounds like some people in congress are getting serious.

  • tom

    Apollo killed people on the ground and it went to the moon and a space station. I hope the commercial guys get crewed spacecraft flying, but Orion is a sure bet!

    The contributions they get are within the limits of the law.

    Orion on an EELV by 2013. Not that far away.

  • josh

    Commercial is the real deal. All else (sls, mpcv/orion) is pork. simple as that.

    if nasa doesn’t put up a real fight for ccdev and manages the program properly i hope that the agency goes away altogether, at least the hsf part of it. at this point it’s main function seems to be to ensure employment for semi-competent old guard engineers like windy who haven’t really accomplished all that much (if anything) but suffer from an annoying superiority complex.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Alright guys, would you rather see us continue to pay Russia for taking us to the ISS, or push the Orion derived vehicle to the next level?

    False dichotomy and you know it. Pathetic.

  • Jeff Foust quoted:

    Arguing that American astronauts should fly to space on American vehicles, he writes, “To this point the Orion Space Capsule demonstrated exemplary safety and functionality.”

    Yeah, when they dropped it into the pool, it didn’t sink. Ready to fly.

  • Vladislaw

    tom wrote:

    “Apollo killed people on the ground and it went to the moon and a space station.”

    As it was preparing to launch. Not YEARS before it was scheduled to launch. Just TAD bit of a difference there.

    That Apollo capsule never went to the moon. The program was grounded for 20 months while they built a totally new one and did a redesign of all the failure points.

    To say that Orion hasn’t killed anyone yet, years ahead of any scheduled manned launch isn’t really saying anything.

  • SpaceColonizer

    Ug… all these congresspeople are completely missing the point.

    The Progress failure is a clear sign that it is time to save the JWST!

  • Arguing that American astronauts should fly to space on American vehicles

    So I guess he is saying we should not launch Boeing CST-100 and S-N Dream Chaser on Atlas V as it uses Russian engine and American astronauts should fly to space on American vehicles :)

  • Martijn Meijering

    That omission is curious as one of the four CCDev-2 companies, Sierra Nevada Corporation, is working on its Dream Chaser vehicle in the Denver suburbs.

    MPCV brings in a lot more money.

  • MrEarl

    “The Progress failure is a clear sign that it is time to save the JWST!”

    That’s quite a leap. Care to explain that one?

    This is not the first time the Soyuz has had issues. Remember a few years ago there were problems with the SM seperation because of some faulty exploding bolts.
    What this proves is that it’s foolish to depend on ONE manned launch vehical to the ISS. This is a wake-up call to excellerate CCDEV, Orion/MPCV, and man rating the Delta IV and Atlas V.

  • Aremis Asling

    Martijn Meijering said:

    “False dichotomy and you know it. Pathetic.”

    You took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks for standing up for sound arguments.

    The problem, as I see it, is that EVERYONE in congress is looking at this as a false dichotomy situation, regardless of the side of the fence the are on. But the worst part is that none of them, even those from those districts, is particularly qualified to defend their particular stance against the other side. And so we get endless grandstanding, sky is falling prophecies, and empty threats, but none of the agreement necessary to move forward.

    All the while NASA is telling them SLS will be ridiculously expensive and delayed (and the independant review says they’re being optimistic), and no one’s listening. And behind curtain number 2 commercial space keeps chugging along, meeting more milestones.

    To me that will be how this plays out. Congress will keep fuming over which course to take while underfunding both. SLS will fail because it can ONLY get federal funds, which we know from Cx funding that congress will never approve. Commercial will eventually succeed because they can get funding elsewhere. And commercial will win out. Not because it’s better (though I think it is the better option). Not because it’s safer(though I think it will be). Not because it’s cheaper(though it almost certainly will be). But because they only need the small injection of funds congress will give them, through shear indecisiveness, to make it work.

    Constituencies will eek by on the bloated federal jobs program for a few more years until NASA pulls a Transhab or HL-20 and cancells it, at which point ATK, Lockheed, et al will revive it as commercial (ala Bigelow, DreamChaser, or CST-100), and we’ll end up with the best of what survives.

    If we’re lucky Lockheed, ATK, et al will come out of it with a few technological advances (fully updated friction stir welding equipment for instance) to push them along.

  • John Malkin

    How do we accelerate Orion MPCV? Take money from SLS or another NASA program? Is Lockheed going to hire more engineers or make existing engineers work longer hours? Maybe the Emperor will show up to personally oversee the completion.

    Looking forward to the unmanned flight in 2013. Hasn’t someone already done an unmanned pressurized orbital capsule test? Oh yea the Orion is magical, maybe they should paint it yellow. We all live in a yellow space ship a yellow space ship…

  • Dennis

    Here you guys go again about jobs programs. What of the people who produce the rockets and or spacecraft like Apollo, the shuttle, and Orion, are not they commercial enterprises? It is these cost plus contracts that are killing everthing. I agree that needs to end. Also if you read what I aid above, I am for commercial too, and we needmore than one access to space, and not just orbital space. We needto push the frontiers further out. Orion or its derivative, to push us further out and is a necessity. I truly hope SpaceX and its Dragon can help push us to Mars as well, wth a veritable flotilla of ships headed that way. Lets also not forget the people who died in the testing phases of the space program. Test pilots that gave their all. It will happen again and there is no way around it. I say skip the damn asteroid mission and trek out to Mars. If it is asteroids you want study the moons of Mars close up.

  • Dennis

    Seriously I am looking forward to SpaceX attempting the docking with the ISS. Russia has figured out its problems with the booster and is pressing on. I dont see any abandonment of the ISS. You people however push this idea of jobs programs a bit to far. What if they were your jobs at the axe? Would you like it? NASA buys its hardware, but allows for these cost overruns that bring it down. JWST is another example, as is the MSL, due for liftoff this coming NOV. Should we really abandon the James Webb now that it is nearing completion? With money already spent we should finish it, perhaps a little later than sooner. In the future contracts should be more defined in what will be paid and what will not….. I dont care if NASA is a jobs prgram, so is the military and I dont hear anyone yelling about that. If thepeople that produce the Atlas, Boeing and Delta vehicles must now lay off people their respective work forces, because of NASA, then these commercial developers are feeling the pinch. Lets keep jobs, as to many are being shipped out to other countries, even as we speak.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Alright guys, would you rather see us continue to pay Russia for taking us to the ISS, or push the Orion derived vehicle to the next level? …

    A ridiculous comparison RGO

  • Rhyolite

    “That omission is curious as one of the four CCDev-2 companies, Sierra Nevada Corporation, is working on its Dream Chaser vehicle in the Denver suburbs.”

    Not really, MPCV generates vastly more pork than the other and is being developed by a much bigger campaign donor. Dream Chasers success would mean a net loss of pork and campaign dollars.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Orion or its derivative, to push us further out and is a necessity.

    There you go again, slipping in another falsehood. Orion isn’t a necessity to go beyond LEO. Dragon could be used for that too and so could a CST-100 v2.0. Both would need a service module, just like Orion. There’s no need for an additional capsule (although there would be nothing against a commercial “Agile Orion”) and there is no need for close NASA involvement with either the SM or the CM. That said, close NASA involvement with the SM wouldn’t be a bad thing, while close involvement with the CM would be a bad thing.

  • Curtis Quick

    Anyone care to prognosticate on how this is all really gonna play itself out? I mean, let’s say that Russia decides to return the ISS crew on their two Soyuz spacecraft before winter sets in, which has been suggested by Roscosmos, but does not launch any new crew. Michael Suffredini has suggested that the ISS has a 50/50 chance of failure over a year’s time if it remains unmanned. Would it be at all likely that Congress might agree to save the ISS and emergency fund NASA’s kicking in a few hundred million dollars to get Americans back up to the ISS on an accelerated schedule F9/Dragon by this time next year? Could that happen? What do your crystal balls say?

  • Bill Hensley

    Found on house.gov:

    Dear Gen. Bolden,

    The recent [insert space mishap here] points to need to dramatically accelerate [insert name of program in your district here] in order to maintain America’s competitiveness in space. This vital program will also provide jobs for the loyal citizens of [insert your district here], many of whom might vote for me next year.

    Sincerely,

    Rep. [insert your name here]

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis wrote:

    “What of the people who produce the rockets and or spacecraft like Apollo, the shuttle, and Orion, are not they commercial enterprises? It is these cost plus contracts that are killing everthing”

    It is those cost plus contracts that allow the contractors to keep more workers on the payrolls than what is needed.

    If you look at ATK, they built a manufacturing base for building SRB’s at a rate for 50 shuttle flights a year. That didn’t happen but they tried to hang onto that capacity for decades when it was known that there would only be a need for 4-5 flights per year.

    There is no leanness to the contractors that have serviced the Shuttle. It is the same for NASA, since the end of the Apollo, NASA through congress, has tried to hang onto every NASA job since it’s inception. That is why we are having the debate on shuttle derived. It is not about which hardware is cheaper, or if a totally new launch system is better and more affordable. It is about congressional members holding on to current jobs whether those jobs are actually needed or not.

    If we switched from cost plus-fixed fee and moved to fixed cost – milestone based guess what? It will cost jobs. So that is why NASA wants to push commercial space into moving from SAA’s to FAR, it will push the costs and time closer to what “traditional” NASA costs. It can then be said by those congressional members “see, commercial is just as expensive as what we propose things should cost”

    Dennis, it is about make work for extra employees, versus trimmed down, lean and hungry contractors.

  • Aremis Asling

    “You people however push this idea of jobs programs a bit to far. What if they were your jobs at the axe?”

    It’s terrible that they are losing their jobs, I agree. And yes, I would hate it if it were my job on the chopping block. But that is not a justification for funding a rocket program that will, at best, be completed early the next decade and for $38 billion. It’s not unfair to cut a program that’s all but destined to build precisely nothing. What’s unfair is that we’ll have to cut jobs and programs that ARE accomplishing something to do keep it running. And we will, because we have.

  • Aremis Asling

    Did we create Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo to create jobs? Did I miss that part of history?

  • Aremis Asling

    “I dont care if NASA is a jobs prgram, so is the military and I dont hear anyone yelling about that.”

    You’re on the wrong blog. You’re looking for Military Politics. It’s down the hall and to the right. Honestly, I hear a lot of people complaining about pointless military spending including unnecessary bases overseas and unnecessary projects. And yes, that all equates to jobs. There are people on both sides of the aisle talking about it now, thanks to the Tea Party. If you don’t hear it, you aren’t listening.

    “With money already spent we should finish it, perhaps a little later than sooner.”

    “As long as the project is neither completed nor stopped, the dilemma will keep presenting itself.”

    –from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_dilemma

    I’d propose that SLS and JWST will both fall pretty securely into this category. Though I actually like both in concept.

    “Lets keep jobs, as to many are being shipped out to other countries, even as we speak.”

    None of the jobs lost by cancelling shuttle/SLS will be shipped to other countries. Not sure where you’re headed with that one.

  • American

    This is all entertaining….however, let’s wait and see what happens to the “commercial” companies when they have to start abiding by all of the enforced NASA quality and safety regulations. That’s the competition I am waiting to see…level the playing fields and then let the games begin.

  • Dennis

    How is it ridiculous to push our space agendums? Remember that commercial like SpaceX and the rest are for orbital missions to ISS. We need a vehicle that can reach the Moonand or Mars. Remember too, that every one of NASAs manned spacecraft has flown people, except Orion. However with that record, Orion wll. Even with the best intentions however crew can be lost, which is of course a sad fact. If SpaceX, and I truly hope it proves successful, proves out its Falcon heavy, if NASA wants to launch with it, that will be great. Until then, I do believe Orion should be mated to either a Delta heavy and or Atlas heavy. That would be the way to go!

  • Martijn Meijering

    Lets keep jobs, as to many are being shipped out to other countries, even as we speak.

    And there’s the real reason for your support for MPCV. Contemptible.

  • Curtis Quick wrote:

    Would it be at all likely that Congress might agree to save the ISS and emergency fund NASA’s kicking in a few hundred million dollars to get Americans back up to the ISS on an accelerated schedule F9/Dragon by this time next year? Could that happen? What do your crystal balls say?

    Nope. Congress couldn’t care less about ISS. All they care about is directing pork to their districts. The members of the space subcommitteees for the most part represent the status quo.

    Personally, I think the worst will be the ISS will have a three-member crew for a few weeks until Soyuz is cleared to launch.

  • Ben Joshua

    The more the contractor lobby puts its Jabba-like weight behind blank check, maybe someday efforts, the more irrelevant they make themselves, in the face of a maturing commercial LEO services sector.

    Using the progress failure as a rationale for boosting programs that may or may not fly late this decade or early next, would be laughable, if it were not for the pathetic and reactionary quality of science education among our elected reps.

    As much as the industry and politicians try to ignore newer space companies with their newer ideas, the more focused these companies are on actual steps forward in the marketplace. The next Dragon flight, if successful, could raise an eyebrow or two, perhaps even on Rep. Perlmutter’s face.

    Sad, but human nature, that the PTB hang on to the last, delaying real progress for years.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Curtis Quick wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 11:42 am

    “Anyone care to prognosticate on how this is all really gonna play itself out”

    Ivan will fix both Soyuz and Proton rather quickly and at worst the station will go to three people…but back up to speed very quickly.

    Both rockets are fairly mature and hence it is unlikely that there is some design defect…what happened is that either some manufactoring error slipped through or there was an assembly glitch (someone had to much Vodka the night before)…the rockets are built new every time…

    To much hard meaning foreign cash is riding on both launch vehicles..except for the timing (which is just bad random chance) there is no real issue here.

    The only real issue is that if there is another story behind it…ie there is something that was going on underneath the radar and the rocket failure brought it to light…I doubt that but its possible….small chance.

    Every person who has an axe in the fight here in the US is trying to hitch on to the “space station might be falling” theory in order to try and get more money for their various programs. There is a guy over at the other forum who works (or worked I guess today he gets the axe) in the shuttle program who is claiming if we still flew shuttle we could at least “human tend” the station…goofy

    SLS, Orion, shuttle, they are all irrelevant here. What needs to happen is that we need to (quote Bush) “stay the course” if anything accelerate a tad. The US needs to get to a replacement/supplement for the Soyuz CRV and that is going to be one of the commercial products…as Orion takes to many billions and years to bring to some flight status.

    By the end of next (Sept) month this will all be much ado over nothing…(or at least there is a 90 percent chance of that)

    In the meantime I am sure that countless civil servants at NASA are churning out one report after another about how to decrew the station; it gives them something to do, kills some trees make work for the ink cartridge people and even keeps the astronauts employed…doubtless all of the groups have to have some strow liaison.

    All is well RGO

  • A fiscally responsible Congress would be mandating the most cost effective route to enable capability. Pretty obviously there’s only one provider trying to save tax payer dollars in a big way and they should be given full reign to get their vehicles fully enabled as fast as possible.

  • amightywind

    The editorial choice of the last few stories is odd, considering the political maelstrom that has arisen over the recent Russian launch failures. The ISS program hangs by a thread as the station must almost certainly be temporarily abandoned. Even Russia, with its confidence shaken, is eyeing the exits from the crushing burden of the program. Isn’t that more important than alleged hit pieces by Mike Griffin, or random quotes from minor players in congress?

  • Rhyolite

    “fiscally responsible Congress”

    That’s an oxymoron.

  • Coastal Ron

    American wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    This is all entertaining….however, let’s wait and see what happens to the “commercial” companies when they have to start abiding by all of the enforced NASA quality and safety regulations.

    Maybe you don’t understand the difference between “commercial” and NASA designed?

    NASA currently buys payload rides on a variety of rockets it has not designed and does not oversee for “NASA quality and safety regulations”.

    NASA also buys human terrestrial transportation vehicles that it has not designed and does not oversee for “NASA quality and safety regulations”.

    And NASA currently buys rides to space on a vehicle (i.e. Soyuz) that it did not design and does not oversee for “NASA quality and safety regulations”.

    So the real question regards what NASA can contribute to “commercial” vehicle without adding unnecessary cost or complexity. And they can contribute a lot, as the CCDev participants would tell you, but NASA still doesn’t know what it will take to produce a spacecraft that addresses all their concerns, because it’s been 40 years since they had one built for them.

    For CCDev, I know Boeing is more concerned with IP issues than NASA accounting or oversight issues, and others have different concerns based on how they currently run their successful businesses. We’ll see.

    That’s the competition I am waiting to see…level the playing fields and then let the games begin.

    The “games” have already begun, and it’s called CCDev. There are four companies vying for the chance of a future ISS contract, and as long as NASA is consistent and clear with their requirements, then the competition should be fair. But that is the only competition going right now – unless you meant something else?

  • The ISS program hangs by a thread as the station must almost certainly be temporarily abandoned.

    There are multiple options to avoid this, if we consider ISS important enough to deploy them. The easiest and safest one would be to just send up an unmanned Soyuz to replace the one that’s going stale.

  • Das Boese

    Dennis wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Remember that commercial like SpaceX and the rest are for orbital missions to ISS. We need a vehicle that can reach the Moonand or Mars.

    Yes, but that vehicle is not Orion.
    Dragon and probably CST-100 are perfectly fine for the relatively short flight to the Moon, a trip to Mars requires a very different kind of spacecraft.

    Remember too, that every one of NASAs manned spacecraft has flown people

    *facepalm*

    , except Orion.

    And why do you think that is, Dennis?

    However with that record, Orion wll. Even with the best intentions however crew can be lost, which is of course a sad fact.

    Crew loss is only “a sad fact” if NASA does it, should a commercial provider lose a crew it will immediately be called proof that the commercial crew program is a failure, must be canceled and the responsible company put out of business.
    And what “record”? NASA’s achievements of the past (but not their failures) are irrelevant to Orion.

    If SpaceX, and I truly hope it proves successful, proves out its Falcon heavy, if NASA wants to launch with it, that will be great.

    Falcon Heavy is completely irrelevant to commercial crew. Manned Dragon launches will use Falcon 9, which has been built to NASA’s available human rating standards and launched successfully twice.

    Until then, I do believe Orion should be mated to either a Delta heavy and or Atlas heavy. That would be the way to go!

    It would be a way to go… nowhere fast. It wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem of ISS access, which can be done cheaper and faster by fully funding commercial crew, and it would push back any meaningful BEO exploration even further into the future.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    The editorial choice of the last few stories is odd…

    That’s the great thing about having your own blog, is that you get to choose what articles you think are important. If people don’t like it, they can always stop coming, but in your case Windy you are still sticking around, so Jeff (our host) must be doing something right.

    But please, don’t let us stop you from finding a more amenable space blog to move to… ;-)

  • Dennis

    I guess you guys with the jobs program problems, well let me ask you a question: What if SpaceX and the other commercial companies, hired all of NASAs people, would you call them a jobs program? The government supplies plenty of jobs both across the US and into other countries. No one is degrading that. Just cause NASA seems at this time to be an easy target, everyone wants to pull her apart. I am not for it because it is a jobs program, Im for it so we can push back off into deep space. We have been held here in LEO for toooooooo long, and need to head back out. If this creates jobs, Im certainly not against it. It is not just about building rockets either. What of mission control and those areas around the world that monitor these space missions. Are they jobs programs? The public school systems are jobs programs, etc. etc.. and are having economic problems. So even with a down turned economy, I dont see why a deep space program cannot commence. NASA does seem to be moving ahead with the Orion and test are proceeding.

  • amightywind

    The easiest and safest one would be to just send up an unmanned Soyuz to replace the one that’s going stale.

    And what of the astronauts who have been irradiated for 7 months. They are going to have to come down.

  • What if SpaceX and the other commercial companies, hired all of NASAs people, would you call them a jobs program?

    Yes, if they only reason they were hiring them was to provide them with jobs. No one is opposed to creating jobs in the process of doing something useful. We are opposed to creating them for their own sake, with taxpayers’ money, regardless of whether or not anything useful is accomplished (e.g., SLS).

  • Egad

    >> “The Progress failure is a clear sign that it is time to save the JWST!”

    > That’s quite a leap. Care to explain that one?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j7ftfRiWlg

  • Dennis

    My point is, what is different about Musk having workers build spacecraft vrs. Boeing, and or anyone else. The problem is the contracts that gve cost plus. So even Musk could end up doing the same thing in the future. How is it NASA is totally at fault in all of this? The various politicans hope to keep jobs in their respective areas, of course, but who ever supplies them like Boeing and or United Alliance, or Musk, is still under the commercial banner. You guys call it pork because these politicians want te jobs in their districts. Now tell me if you were all politicians, wouldnt you want them too? Be honest here. It is these cost over runs that make either NASA and or military programs so damn expensive. Everyone should be looking for methods to stop that abuse.

  • And what of the astronauts who have been irradiated for 7 months. They are going to have to come down.

    There is nothing magic about seven months.

  • Bennett

    What of mission control and those areas around the world that monitor these space missions. Are they jobs programs?

    Ya see Dennis, this is a false comparison. The only jobs in question are the jobs from the bloated shuttle program, jobs that no longer serve a purpose.

    Keeping these folks standing around or pushing a broom for the next 10 years isn’t going to get us closer to being able to “push back off into deep space”. Quite the opposite is true.

    As long as NASA spends millions of dollars on employees that don’t contribute to space exploration, we will never be able to do anything other than service the ISS or have a few robotic missions.

    Also, please do me a favor, when you reference commercial space try writing:

    “Remember that commercial like Boeing’s CST-100 and the rest are for orbital missions to ISS.”

    or

    “Seriously I am looking forward to Boeing attempting the docking with the ISS.”

    It would show the rest of that you have a grip on the facts and aren’t completely simpleminded.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    You guys call it pork because these politicians want te jobs in their districts.

    No, we call it pork because the legislation telling NASA to build the SLS was written specifically to benefit certain political districts and specific companies. Not to build something that has clear need.

    Dennis, what funded programs require an SLS? When will Congress be funding a program that it requires so much mass in space that only the SLS will be able to support it?

    The politicians are building the SLS to pump money into the places and companies that they benefit from, pure and simple.

  • The problem is the contracts that gve cost plus. So even Musk could end up doing the same thing in the future.

    Only if he takes cost-plus contracts. He has given no indication of willingness to do so. He is in the business of building and flying space hardware, not government contracting, or jobs creating.

    How is it NASA is totally at fault in all of this?

    No one has said that NASA is totally at fault in all of this. It is actually Congress who is at fault.

    You guys call it pork because these politicians want te jobs in their districts. Now tell me if you were all politicians, wouldnt you want them too?

    Yes, that’s why we’re not politicians, and instead criticize the politicians. You don’t seem to be making any sensible points.

  • Dennis

    I thought the ISS was within the Van Allen belt, thereby space radiation is not a problem. Its when you go beyond that, that it becomes such. A Russian spent 426 days on one mission, way back when, and survived very nicely. 7 months should prove no problem! Id like to see another year long flight.

  • Dennis

    I think that this whole pork jobs fiasco, is a joke. Every end of what we do issupposed to create jobs, whether it be making paper or spaceships. NASA is no different. It still remains to be seen if commercial can indeed support itself and if the customers line up. I know the price will have to come down one whole hell of a lot before I can buy a ticket to ride!

  • I think that this whole pork jobs fiasco, is a joke. Every end of what we do issupposed to create jobs, whether it be making paper or spaceships.

    No, it’s not. The end of what we do is to produce things that we value. Jobs are a side effect. If they become the goal in themselves (e.g., “stimulus”), the economy ends up about where our economy is today.

  • pathfinder_01

    Denis part of the advance of society is figuring out how to do more with less. Imagine how far society would have gotten if politicians kept pushing policies that protect old ways of doing things just to keep people employed. No lowering of prices can take place and you will only be able to buy X with Y budget. Sometimes the lowering of price brings increases the market such that more people will be hired, sometimes not.

    Imagine if congress forbade the use of an assembly line for the production of government bought items. That is what is very wrong with protecting jobs at the expense of technology.

    I would love to see space x and ULA hire all the shuttle workers but they can’t and make a profit. In addition as much as certain Congressmen want to keep jobs in their district, Congress as a whole wants to cut the budget. I can see a commercial deep space program working on a budget of say 2-3 billion a year. 3 billion a year is not enough to keep anything shuttle derived flying.

    With the military there is justification bigger army is usually an advantage in war and having bases nearby potential hot spots is helpful. With NASA I see no justification for the expense. SLS can’t do much in any sane timeframe and I can barely stand the cost of Orion (disposable—and about 800Million a copy).

    Let’s say you go for a more commercial method of spaceflight.
    Instead of SLS you develop a space storable stage that could be lifted by any rocket that can lift 25-50Mt. I would bet that this would cost a lot less than SLS and could be done sooner. It could be lifted by exsisting and near term rockets.

    With Orion, Dragon, Dream chaser XL, or say a more advanced CST100 you could travel to a L point exchange there for say a lunar lander or a NEO spacecraft. You can put the money towards payloads instead of towards a rocket designed to generate jobs in certain districts. The problem with CXP and now SLS is that payloads are delayed because we can’t afford them on the budget given. Even Orion is suffering from SLS at the moment as they only plan 1 unmanned test flight with no working service module so far.

  • Jeff Foust

    The editorial choice of the last few stories is odd, considering the political maelstrom that has arisen over the recent Russian launch failures.

    Mr./Ms. Wind may have forgotten that the letter cited here, as well as the releases last week from Rep. Rohrabacher and Sen. Hutchison, pretty much constitute the “political maelstrom” from the Soyuz/Progress launch failure. All three appear to be using the incident to press for programs they already support, be it CCDev, MPCV, or SLS. And that’s about it, at least for now, given that the long-term impact of the accident remains uncertain (including whether the station will be decrewed for any length of time.)

    Of course, if you don’t like the “editorial choice” here, you’re free to choose other sites from which to get your space policy fix. Or, even, start your own.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    “I think that this whole pork jobs fiasco, is a joke. Every end of what we do issupposed to create jobs, whether it be making paper or spaceships.”

    actually no.

    the end of what the nation does is to create infrastructure that the people of The REpublic can use to fullfil the destiny cited in the DOI. If the spending of The Republic does not do that, no matter if the money is spent building a space station which is doing things that are more or less jokes or fighting in a war that was based on lies…or however that money is spent; if at the end of the spending there is nothing of value that makes the lives of the people of TR able to meet the destiny in the DOI…then the money is wasted.

    We are in the fix we are in in part because how the money that we put forth in tax dollars has been spent, has not been spent to do things for the people no matter if it was TARP or Cx or Iraq or wherever. RGO

  • Vladislaw

    “I thought the ISS was within the Van Allen belt, thereby space radiation is not a problem. Its when you go beyond that, that it becomes such. A Russian spent 426 days on one mission, way back when, and survived very nicely.”

    The belt has an inner and outer belt and the ISS travels though the south atlantic anomoly i believe and does not get as much.

    The russian was pretty beat up when he came back to earth and they thought they were going to have to send him back to leo but his systems finally kicked in.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 8:34 am

    “What further demonstration do we need of the foolhardiness of our reliance on Russia? ”

    =yawn= Yeah, it was pretty ‘foolhardy’ for the Russians to rely on Soyuz/Progress to access MIR all those years before the MIR/shuttle docking missions. Good grief.

  • Fred Willett

    Dennis wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    It is these cost over runs that make either NASA and or military programs so damn expensive. Everyone should be looking for methods to stop that abuse.
    They are.
    COTS
    NASA spent $500M to get ont one but 2 new ISS delivery systems.
    Spacex Dragon on Falcon 9 and Orbital’s Cygnus on Taurus 2.
    That’s two new rockets and 2 new spacecraft for $500M.
    Compare this with the cost of a NASA designed cost plus rocket. Ares 1.
    $9B spent for no result.
    A second way of NASa saving money is SAAs. These tend to be small projects but a lot has been achieved for a fraction of the cost of traditional FAR procurements.

  • vulture4

    Radiation exposure on the ISS, as on Skylab, is about 1 milisievert per day, or about 36 rem/year, comparable for a full year in space to about two or three CT scans. It is much higher than what members of the general public should be exposed to, but the hazard is modest compared to the overall risk of spaceflight and so far as I know not a concern to the crew. It will certainly not induce acute radiation sickness or otherwise affect the mission.

    More important, because the risk is linear, there is nothing specific that happens to the body after three months, or six, or twelve. The 1000th day carries the same risk as the first, and breaking up a year into four tours of three months rather than one tour of twelve just spreads the same risk among four people. Moreover, since virtually all the actual risk is in launch and landing, it is actually _much_ safer for one astronaut to spend a year on the ISS, launching and landing once, than for four to spend three months each with four launches and landings.

    So the NASA standards setting specific times crew can stay in space based on radiation exposure do not really make sense. When should an astronaut come down from the ISS? Maybe when they get tired of flying in space and want to go home.

  • Dennis

    Everyone keeps saying flying old tech. is a bad thing. Perhaps Orion along with a new launcher, both upgraded of course is just building on old tech. I do agree that we should use the old tech of flying Orion on aDelta and or Atlas heavy, but for some reason, pork I guess you guys call it, our government doesntlike this idea. I dont really think Orion is old tech. It no doubt was build on or off of the Apollo idea, but she is a new ship, and should have been built to be reused. That maybe is where Dragon will be better. However Orion is still for deep space, which is some where we humans need to go. I only see space tourism as becoming an amusement park ride for the wealthy, not for the little underpaid person, like perhaps you and me. We as a species grow tired ofthings quickly, so how long will it be before space tourism is seen as oh huml, like the Apollo and shuttle missions became?

  • Das Boese

    vulture4 wrote @ August 31st, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    Agreed that radiation exposure is not all that big a concern, unless the Sun decides to defy all predictions and become very active all of a sudden.
    They still can’t stay indefinitely, though, because of bone/muscle degeneration. The Russian record holder was able to stand and walk away from his capsule (with great difficulty I imagine, but nonetheless) after 437 days in space, and while ISS has better workout equipment and improved nutrition compared to MIR, the effects will inevitably set in.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 6:08 am

    Everyone keeps saying flying old tech. is a bad thing.

    No, we’re saying expensive tech is a bad thing. Big difference.

  • @Dennis
    ‘I dont really think Orion is old tech.”

    Well, Orion uses an AvCoat TPS similar to Apollo Command Module. As currently specified it could handle the Earth atmosphere re-entry temperatures for a return from the moon, but could not handle the temperatures associated with a re-entry from Mars. Dragon uses an up-to-date material called Pica-X and it is designed to withstand re-entry temps of a return from Mars.

    Furthermore, Orion can only do the old-fashioned splash-down return in the ocean that Apollo did. The crewed version of Dragon will be able to do a rocket powered touch down on land.

    So sorry, in some ways Orion is indeed “old tech”.

  • Dennis

    Presently on Earth a group of people, are undertaking a mock Mars mission. They have almost stayed the duration time. I think Nov. is when they can come out. I think the next step should be to send a couple of people to the ISS for a mock Mars mission. This would be the next logical step….

  • amightywind

    Agreed that radiation exposure is not all that big a concern, unless the Sun decides to defy all predictions and become very active all of a sudden.

    Cosmic rays are the main hazard. In spaceflight your kind of ignorance is lethal.

  • In spaceflight your kind of ignorance is lethal.

    Your kind of ignorance is lethal everywhere.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 11:31 am
    ” This would be the next logical step….”

    please no more of those “next logical steps”…NASA has been pushing those since APollo RGO

  • @ablastofhotair
    “Cosmic rays are the main hazard. In spaceflight your kind of ignorance is lethal.”

    As an astrophysicist, I can tell you that, yes, cosmic rays can be lethal, but only in extremely rare situations when there is an intense gamma ray burst which happen at random times coming from random directions with no warning. What occurs much more frequently and is potentially very lethal are the Sun’s occasional CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections) and often associated solar flares, both of which may eject large volumes of charged particles at incredibly high energies. It was good that all of the Apollo moon missions took place when there were no CMEs that were oriented in the right direction to cause harm to astronauts. CMEs are also of varying strength, so some would have greater probability of lethality than others. Right now there is a build up with probable solar maximum in 2013. It takes about 4.5 days from the time we first see a CME until its outflow reaches Earth orbit. This several days of warning is one good argument for a large true spacecraft such as Nautilus-X which would have a safe area for astronauts to go to surrounded by the ship’s water supply that would give very good protection against both CMEs and cosmic ray bursts. If you are in Orion, you would just have to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

  • P.S. The source of a gamma ray burst also has to be oriented pretty much precisely toward Earth to be sufficiently lethal. The radiation level is also dependent on strength and closeness of the source. So even though about one gamma ray burst per day is observed, only very rarely is the radiation at dangerous levels. Most are extremely far away; i.e., millions to billions of parsecs.

  • Dennis

    Orion vrs. Dragon. Well since Dragon has not made an high speed return at lunar or Mars return speeds, it hasnt been proven a viable option. They think it will work.

  • Well since Dragon has not made an high speed return at lunar or Mars return speeds, it hasnt been proven a viable option.

    Neither has Orion. It hasn’t even gone into space. In fact, it doesn’t even exist. Something called the MPCV does.

  • Martijn Meijering

    As opposed to Orion / MPCV which hasn’t even flown yet?

  • @Dennis
    “Orion vrs. Dragon. Well since Dragon has not made an high speed return at lunar or Mars return speeds, it hasnt been proven a viable option. They think it will work.”

    And Orion has?

    The rationalization of SLS/Orion huggers is amazing.

    As far as “They think it will work”, you need to remember that Orion was designed for Constellation which was a Moon mission. That’s the reason why I said “as currently specified” because the TPS was designed with a Moon mission in mind. Even if they were only going to the moon, why didn’t they use the newer lighter NASA-developed PICA shielding like Space X did since it already existed? I can think of only one reason: that was the way Apollo did it, so that was what they did.

    BTW. Yes, Dragon can definitlely withstand the temperature of a Mars reentry because that’s the PICA-X shielding that was the TPS that allowed Stardust to survive it’s return after travelling to asteroid AnneFranke, comet Wild II and comet Temple 1.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Well since Dragon has not made an high speed return at lunar or Mars return speeds, it hasnt been proven a viable option.

    Orion/MPCV hasn’t either. The MPCV uses a version of AVCOAT, which the the Apollo command module used, but it hasn’t been tested since Apollo.

    The SpaceX Dragon uses a version of PICA that SpaceX developed (PICA-X), and has already been tested both in the lab and on their recent LEO flight.

    PICA was also used for the Stardust sample-return capsule, which was the fastest man-made object ever to reenter Earth’s atmosphere (12.4 km/s or 28,000 mph at 135 km altitude) This was faster than the Apollo mission capsules and 70% faster than the Shuttle.

    The Dragon heat shield has already been in a live test, and you can see the results by viewing the capsule – when will the MPCV do the same?

  • pathfinder_01

    “The Dragon heat shield has already been in a live test, and you can see the results by viewing the capsule – when will the MPCV do the same?”

    Good question as sadly no high speed reentry is planned for the 2013 test…in fact the 2013 test is about as advanced as the Dragon 2010 one! No lifesupport, no real service module ect…..

  • Vladislaw

    “Even if they were only going to the moon, why didn’t they use the newer lighter NASA-developed PICA shielding like Space X did since it already existed?”

    Is there a difference in how easy it is to cover a large area with PICA? Was there an issue at the time on which one to use when the Orion was at it’s largest diameter? Thought I recalled a debate about this at the time. It went through so many changes though it is hard to keep track.

  • Dennis

    Wow, I must be mis-reading info? I thoughtOrion was intended to eventually go to Mars, and still is today. I keep hearing Mars missions with both Orion and theDragon. Now as to why one heat shield is chosen over an other, well Im not the engineers that handle that, so I cant say.. Anyway, I thought both vehicles are intended for eventual Mars missions?

  • Dennis

    MPCV is the newer designated name, but I think Orion still has been kept. Even the Congress men call it Orion….

  • @Dennis
    “Wow, I must be mis-reading info? I thoughtOrion was intended to eventually go to Mars, and still is today. “

    That might have been the lip service they were giving, but if they were truly planning it to be used for Mars missions, why didn’t they give it the heat shield to handle it?

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 11:57 am

    I thoughtOrion was intended to eventually go to Mars, and still is today.

    Only in the Lockheed Martin marketing brochures. It was designed for keeping a crew of four alive for 21 days during a lunar mission, with no exercise facilities. Maybe it will serve lifeboat duty on a true spaceship that is going to Mars, but because of it’s high price, I doubt it.

    Dennis wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    MPCV is the newer designated name, but I think Orion still has been kept. Even the Congress men call it Orion.

    What about Congress women?

    Look, people that can process new information call the MPCV the MPCV. People that can’t process new information will call it Orion. But the MPCV has different capabilities than the Orion, so it’s not just a matter of what they are called.

    Don’t be a lemming. Call the MPCV the MPCV.

  • common sense

    @ Vladislaw wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 2:47 am

    PICA is tiled to cover a large surface. The problem comes from the gap fillers. So yes PICA can sustain the very high speed reentry but it is not know if the gap fillers will behave. Actually experiments have shown it may not. There is a presentation somewhere. AVCOAT has flown and is de facto human rated (Hey Rand? ;) ) or so was the feeling. PICA has not. Actually had not before Dragon. There is a host of issues that are unsolved with tiled PICA.

    Hope this helps.

  • common sense

    @ Vladislaw wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 2:47 am

    Here: Slide 22 for example. Have fun!

    https://smartech.gatech.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1853/26408/78-98-1-PB.pdf?sequence=1

  • Vladislaw

    Thank CS,

    I did some reading, looking at who manufactured each, who’s district they were in, the timeline for the decision. It looks like when land landing and reusability were scrapped pica was also. Avcoat is directly attached and if the capsule is only used once and the moon was the only target, they went with one that was easiest.

    I was surprised at how many honeycombed cells had to be filled. 400,000 for the Apollo capsule and 600,000 – 700,000 cells for the MPCV. Each cell gets individually filled and if a bubble occurs they have to drill a small hole and pump more resin in.

    If this is not 100% automated it must be just super man hour intensive. Another reason for the choice?

  • common sense

    @ Vladislaw wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    “If this is not 100% automated it must be just super man hour intensive.”

    It is crazy and NASA had planned to use a robot to fill the honeycomb. I don’t know what happened to that though.

    “Another reason for the choice?”

    Nope. Not that I know. It flew human back from the Moon, AVCOAT that is, is a pretty good reason. However know that the new AVCOAT is not quite the Apollo AVCOAT… Yet the gap filler problem is not solved. That I know any way. So which one is best? I would say the one that flies and comes back with data… So long the data is being used for analysis and validation/verification…

    ;)

  • pathfinder_01

    “If this is not 100% automated it must be just super man hour intensive. Another reason for the choice?”

    in Orion’s defense they did automate this process. However PICA is still less labor intensive. Hence why Space X would risk using PICA (i.e. if it works you have a better heat shield and a cheaper to make one…and for LEO missions if they can do land landings one that is possible reusable too(it ablates a lot less than Avcoat and could do more than one LEO mission).

    It is a case of NASA being risk adverse. PICA carries the risk that the gap fillers won’t work….but the trouble with being risk adverse is that nothing is gained(i.e. Avcoat will increase your mission costs and masses more than PICA. ). Every new technology was once a risk and sometimes you can’t advoid risk at all….The current version of Avocoat is not the same as the Apollo one..

  • pathfinder_01

    “Wow, I must be mis-reading info? I thoughtOrion was intended to eventually go to Mars, and still is today. I keep hearing Mars missions with both Orion and theDragon. Now as to why one heat shield is chosen over an other, well Im not the engineers that handle that, so I cant say.. Anyway, I thought both vehicles are intended for eventual Mars missions?”

    Dragon was designed with an eye towards BEO missions. Orion was designed for lunar ones. One problem with mars missions is that there are questions as to if people can survive the high speed of direct reentry. A direct reentry after a mars mission will pull more g’s than Apollo. There are questions as to wither or not you might need something with more lift than a capsule to survive.

    IMHO it is not wise to design anything with Mars in mind at this point in time as no mars mission has been selected.

    CXP Orion was going to support a crew of 4 for 21 days, be able to wait 6 months by itself without a crew as well as wait 6 months at a space station. However CXP Orion also lacks the delta V to both enter and leave lunar orbit(it was going to use Alter to handle breaking into lunar orbit). About the only deep space mission you could do with CXP Orion would be a high earth orbit or a L point mission and Orion became both high priced and disposable. Orion has radation harderned electronics and a bit more radationshielding than dragon but there is nothing preventing dragon to be likewise upgraded.

    Honestly the only thing a capsule can do on a deep space mission is be a crew return vechile or maybe a crew transfer vechile(I.e. transport the crew to a waiting larger spacecraft) and who knows what the MPCV will do as there are plans to cut some of this ability and I have a feeling that not much work has been done on Orion’s service module to date as the 2013 test won’t test a real service module.

  • vulture4

    Rick Boozer wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    What occurs much more frequently and is potentially very lethal are the Sun’s occasional CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections) and often associated solar flares, both of which may eject large volumes of charged particles at incredibly high energies.

    What is typical particle energy spectrum for CMEs? Although CMEs produce very high flux they occur for limited time periods, and with even a brief warning crew could take cover in a small shielded volume, or “storm cellar” on the spacecraft.

    It should also be noted that there is no evidence weightlessness alone limits flight duration. Although exercise equipment for spacecraft remains suboptimal, reasonably intense exercise can clearly limit bone and muscle loss to a degree that doesn’t significantly increase the risk of serious injury.

  • common sense

    @ pathfinder_01 wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 2:22 am

    “It is a case of NASA being risk adverse. PICA carries the risk that the gap fillers won’t work….but the trouble with being risk adverse is that nothing is gained”

    This is a little underestimating the risk on your part. The differential ablation will most likely cause hypersonic boundary layer tripping. The problem is that in turn you get high heating locally.So much so you might end up with a burn through of your thermal protection system.

    Now remember Robinson under the Shuttle removing the gap fillers before entry?

    http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/EVA_gapfiller.html

    Why did he do that? Well generally speaking there an army of people running simulations when something like that occurs. A lot of computational fluid dynamics and possibly experiments. The CFD most likely showed the tripping of the boundary layer and the potential risks. So they sent the astronaut to remove the gap fillers.

    Yeah well atmospheric entry is a little tricky… Some people are lucky others not so much.

  • @Vulture4
    “and with even a brief warning crew could take cover in a small shielded volume, or “storm cellar” on the spacecraft.

    Did you not see in my comment that I said that very thing? Look at this passage in my comment:
    “It takes about 4.5 days from the time we first see a CME until its outflow reaches Earth orbit. This several days of warning is one good argument for a large true spacecraft such as Nautilus-X which would have a safe area for astronauts to go to surrounded by the ship’s water supply that would give very good protection against both CMEs and cosmic ray bursts. If you are in Orion, you would just have to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.”

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler 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>