A couple brief notes on a quiet holiday weekend:
A little over a week ago, Florida Sens. Bill Nelson (D) and Marco Rubio (R) sent a letter to the White House countering claims in another letter by five other senators that money appropriated for the Space Launch System (SLS) was being “misallocated” to facility upgrades at the Kennedy Space Center. Nelson and Rubio argued that the funds were being used appropriately to “decrease development and operations costs” for the SLS. In a statement to the Huntsville Times last week, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), one of the five senators who signed the original letter about the misallocation of SLS funds, tried to find some common ground with his Florida colleagues. “I am glad to see that my colleagues from Florida have joined me in pushing the administration to follow the law and move forward with the development of a Space Launch System,” he said in the statement. However, the portion of the statement quoted in the article suggested Shelby was not backing away from his original claim that SLS money should not be spent on the KSC upgrades.
On Friday the Wall Street Journal reported that Blue Origin suffered a setback in its vehicle development program when a test vehicle flew out of control at its west Texas launch site and was destroyed. The Journal article suggested the failure could affect NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program, as Blue Origin is one of four companies with second-round CCDev awards from NASA. “The failure also could set back White House plans to promote commercially developed spacecraft to transport crews to the international space station by the second half of this decade,” the article claimed. However, Blue Origin’s own statement, posted on its web site shortly after the Journal article first appeared, and signed by Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos, suggests the test failure will have little or no effect on its CCDev-2 work: “We’re working on the sub-orbital crew capsule separately, as well as an orbital crew vehicle to support NASA’s Commercial Crew program,” Bezos wrote. The test also does not appear to be closely tied to any of its CCDev-2 milestones, according to a NASA document updated last month.
Does anyone really give a crap about Blue Origin. I never did. I always looked at their secrecy as a lack of confidence.
Space flight is hard. Blue Origin’s not giving up. Press forward gentleman.
Best to find these problems now than when the ship is operational. How they handled this puts them a few pegs up on the board. Well done.
The Senate wants SLS to get started. Stand up the project office and they will more or less back off.
The only org that will lose in the end is NASA. Not Lori and Charlie… but NASA
Windy’s diatribe against ‘crony capitalist Obama supporting hobby space’ in 5…4…3…2…
Accidents and mishaps happen, so it’s more a matter of how you react to them.
To those that know “sh*t happens”, you try to figure out what happened, fix it, and move on. To those that think they know better, they typically don’t last long.
This is not something new, as it’s been happening throughout our history of invention. Believing it’s something new, like Pasztor does, is pretty ignorant. I can imagine what his his headlines would have been back in the early days of NASA – he would have demanded we shut down the space program. Or after Challenger and Columbia were lost too.
Airlines fall out of the sky too, so is Pasztor suggesting that when an accident happens that we shut down the commercial airline system? If anything having more than one vehicle and more than one provider helps us to survive these types of incidents without affecting overall service. A point that is apparently too sophisticated for Mr. Pasztor.
The guy at the WSJ is a tool…but you can get a measure as to who else is by the adaption of the “logic” (or thought process if you please)…pretty goofy RGO
Hello all you commercial-space supporters:
All I have heard on this site is of all the failures that NASA has experienced and how they failed with Ares 1-X and failed with the Shuttle…blah blah blah. You all know who you are. The funny thing is you commercial supporters are totally clue-less on how difficult space travel is. The other thing you keep rambling on about is how GREAT the commercial space providers are and how wonderful Space X is and unfortunately, you have brain washed the NASA Administrator. Well, like countless other commercial space failures – Blue Origins is just another huge failure that took place a few days ago. THEY COULD NOT EVEN LOCATE THEIR VEHICLE – PATHETIC!! The funny thing is you all will figure out a way to make them smell like roses – even more pathetic. Before you start making fun of all the hard working aerospace professionals at the NASA Centers, know this….
The accomplishments that the commercial-space providers have done is insignificant to the successes that NASA has provided to America over the years.
Also with the failure of Progress (Russia’s Launch Vehicle), they have decided to join with the defense sector to ensure more funding and stronger technical excellence.
That is why it is paramount to have the SLS designed, developed and operated by the Space Agency. We need to have a vehicle that can explore deep space and also serve as a backup for transportation to ISS. To put all your confidence in the commercial-space providers is short-sighted and bound for failure.
I believe NASA should develop SLS/MPCV and we should be on the forefront of space technology.
SLS is not at ‘the forefront of space technology’. Its a kludge of shuttle parts with a dash of duct tape thrown in. Its also a little over-built for ISS supply runs don’t you think?
Stand back a second…someone is testing a relatively large, reusable, VTVL, crew capable, suborbital launch vehicle at high altitudes and supersonic speeds. The vehicle has flow successfully before. It seems to me that the existence of the vehicle is much bigger news than how it came to light.
BTW, the WSJ article is hack-tacular. It’s like suggesting that a 787 testing failure calls into question US industry’s ability to deliver fighter aircraft to USAF.
MM_NASA wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
“All I have heard on this site is of all the failures that NASA has experienced and how they failed with Ares 1-X and failed with the Shuttle…blah blah blah.
Let’s keep in mind that “NASA” is not one thing or person, but a multitude of things and people.
It is an agency headed by an appointee of whatever the current administration is. It is made up of centers and facilities that reside in districts that have politicians watching over them. It has lots of talented people, and probably more than it’s fair share of managers that can’t manage the tasks NASA wants or has been told to do.
Regarding Ares 1-X, the $445M test flight, which used no Ares I hardware or software, only highlighted the waste that the Constellation program was generating. For the same amount of money NASA could have test flown the Orion capsule on a Delta IV Heavy. Instead we got the largest bottle-rocket launch in history. What a waste.
Regarding the Shuttle, NASA didn’t really run the Shuttle, contractors like USA did. The big problem there was a lack of oversight by the politicians and NASA management going back decades, in that they should have decided long ago that the Shuttle was not meeting cost or safety goals, and made plans accordingly. The didn’t, so now we have this big gap in our ability to fly people to space.
The solution for the Shuttle program is to change spaceflight to LEO from being a government monopoly into an open market for our commercial sector. That is what the CCDev program is for, and lest you forget, commercial crew was proposed by Bush/Griffin back in the FY06 NASA budget.
“That is why it is paramount to have the SLS designed, developed and operated by the Space Agency.”
Sorry, but your logic is like saying “because the sky is blue, we should turn left with an apple.”
NASA can buy any rocket they want, so there is no shortage of access for them. The big question is “why” does NASA need to design, develop and operate their own rocket? They don’t do that for any of their unmanned programs, and neither does any other government agency or department.
So the bottom line is how do we get more activity in space by not paying hugely more sums of money. The SLS will get the MPCV to space, but not before consuming $38B and a decade of time. We can stick the MPCV on Delta IV Heavy and be in space much sooner, for far less money. Why not?
No one has even identified a reason to build the SLS, except for jobs and mythical payloads. When will Congress allocate the money for the supposed large amounts of 250,000 lb SLS-only payloads?
The weeding out is starting. Like every other commercial venture there will be winners and losers. NASA has a big challenge ahead of them with CCDEV 3.
““The failure also could set back White House plans to promote commercially developed spacecraft to transport crews to the international space station by the second half of this decade,†the article claimed.”
In other words, ‘They don’t know what they don’t know, yet.” Cernan is correct again.
Coastal Ron,
Delta IV heavy cannot provide access to deep space exploration. It does not have the necessary thrust. Significant modification will be needed to meet this requirement and then it will need to be man-rated as well. Also, the first SLS flight will occur in 2017 – less than 6 years from now. If we develop a vehicle from scratch with the idealogy that it can be easily modularized for different functions, this is the best course of action. This is NASA’s goal. It is a misconception that only contractors designed and developed various NASA vehicles. Many NASA folks from all centers in conjunction with Rocketdyne worked on SSME development, characterization and development. I wish luck to the aerospace community and hope that we have a brighter future ahead.
@ MM_NASA wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Who the heck come up with such twisted logic? You are comparing SLS to the vehicle that BO is testing? How about the cost of either?
Those who know, really know who actually are pathetic. And they are not at BO.
MM_NASA wrote:
“All I have heard on this site is of all the failures that NASA has experienced and how they failed with Ares 1-X and failed with the Shuttle…blah blah blah.”
How much did this accident cost the American taxpayer? Oh ya .. nothing.
How much does it cost the American taxpayer if SpaceX or Orbital are a little late on schedule with their fixed cost, milestone based contracts? Oh ya .. nothing.
How much does it cost the American taxpayer when 65% of all shuttle flights were late? Millions per launch attempt?
How much does it cost the American taxpayer when the wheels fell off the Constellation program with delays, design changes, on and on? Oh ya 13 billion.
There is a diffence when NASA makes a mistake or an accident occurs or they go behind schedule. The American taxpayer takes it up the ….
So your “blah blah blah” shows how much you are in tune with the people that pays for your paycheck. You could give a squat…. give us the money, let us do it the “traditional” NASA way with cost plus – fixed fee, and shut the hell up.
Ares I-X was designed to do two things: 1. prove the basic 2007 shape would fly (and it did). 2. Prove Atlas V avionics and software could fly the Ares I (more or less) configuration. Atlas V avionics and software was going to be the backup if the NASA developed Ares I software development effort failed.
Ares I-X work just fine and did what it intended to do (other than suffer a parachute failure and hit hard).
No matter what you have been told it was a successfull flight.
tom wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
“Ares I-X was designed to do two things: 1. prove the basic 2007 shape would fly (and it did). 2. Prove Atlas V avionics and software could fly the Ares I (more or less) configuration. Atlas V avionics and software was going to be the backup if the NASA developed Ares I software development effort failed.”
sorry that is a fairly poor rationale…but it does illustrate the goofy nature of NASA development.
How many people are/were working on both avionics and software “trees”? Why were their two? It doesnt make any sense to spend the money on a “NASA develped Ares 1 software” if there was a suitable commercial system particularly one that was proven.
Basic shape information is always good but all the folks on Ares 1X got out of it was basic shape…and nothing else. There was no test flight of the presumed primary avionics software string (ie the NASA developed Ares 1 software), there was no flight of a viable second stage, the first stage was not even a flight article that resembled in anything but name the actual supposed flight hardware.
It was a PR stunt to try and make people think that Ares 1 was making progress. There was less “there there” then say Delta Clipper and that took a lot less money.
typical NASA waste RGO
@ Coastal Ron:
When will Congress allocate the money for the supposed large amounts of 250,000 lb SLS-only payloads?
****
Well I guess we’ll have to wait until the SLS report is released with its series of missions. Granted it’s a stretched out schedule (meaning more cost) with a minimum of 2 flights, one unmanned lunar flyaround in 2017 and the other crewed lunar flyaround in 2021, with follow-on missions ever year thereafter…but at least it’s a bare bones manifest. Congress will then have its say as to how many payloads it will fund once SLS comes online in 2017. So far they’ve been waiting for NASA and the WH to come up with a list of missions/destinations that require use of SLS. Once we really see what those are, then we’re in a better position to determine what type of funding will be required for those payloads. If Congress is not satisfied with the series of SLS missions, then they can propose NASA arrive at a more compact schedule (without the default infrastructure spending part of stretched out schedules) with missions starting earlier. These SLS missions have to lead up to an asteroid (or lunar landing) mission and then after that have to lead up to preps for the first crewed mission to land on Mars (forget the bogus Martian moon visiting missions — too much risk to just not land and only explore the moons). Besides we can explore the Martian moons with unmanned probes. I don’t know what this fascination with sending humans to low-gravity small bodies is. That’s not where the key science is. It’s on Mars itself.
Hey Vladislaw,
You’re a case in point, never admit failure by the commercial-providers, but provide an excuse. If this costed the lives of American astronauts, you would be singing a different tune and you can say bye-bye to your precious commercial-entity. The more of these type of “accidents” occur, the less likely NASA will trust the commercial-providers. Open your eyes, space exploration is a risky and a difficult task and it should be lead by the United States government. All comercial-providers are good at are talking the big talk, and hiding or downplaying their failures. It’s a good thing the taxpayers are not paying for their efforts – let’s keep it that way.
The Atlas V avionics is 100% owned and flown by LM (ULA). We tried to make them give it to us, but they (wisely) said no. If they had agreed, the NASA software effort would have needed in 2007. We needed to verify the acoustic effects @ launch. It was going to cost more to prove the models than fly the hardware. Without a real flight the risk would remain. We got a lot of data from that flight. Ares I-X was never to have an upper stage or the forth coming avionics for Ares I. It was good launch, with images taken out of context. It worked just like we wanted it to. Ares I flight software had issues for sure, common cause failure, 3 strings, etc. but that’s for a different post. As Steve Cook once said you build the rocket you’re told to build, not the one you want.
“Ares I-X work just fine and did what it intended to do”
Was damaging the launch pad part of what it was intened to do?
Was the mock second stage breaking in half with the nose dragging during the flight part of what it was intened to do?
@ SpaceColonizer:
“Does anyone really give a crap about Blue Origin. I never did. I always looked at their secrecy as a lack of confidence.”
And yet, automobile manufacturers go to great lengths to conceal new models on a test track, knowing they can’t hide from off-property photographers with long lenses…
What you call a ‘lack of confidence,’others call protecting intellectual property during development. (You know that someone lost one of Apple’s prototype smartphones *again,* right? Gee, why would they want to conceal something under development either…?)
@ Rhyolite:
“The vehicle has flow successfully before. It seems to me that the existence of the vehicle is much bigger news than how it came to light.”
You would think so, wouldn’t you?
The other good news is that their thrust termination system worked as it should, and escape from a not-still-accelerating booster should then be practical. Would that that were an option with Shuttle/Ares/Liberty, before SRB burnout…
Yes, looking for damage to the launch pad was part of what it was designed to do. The upperstage did not break in two…. it seperated just like we wanted it to,
Go Blue Origin, bring on SLS!
tom wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
It was going to cost more to prove the models than fly the hardware.
That I DONT believe.
“Without a real flight the risk would remain.”
it still remains there was nothing there that “looked” like the real booster…ie not even the nozzle was a flight nozzle.
” We got a lot of data from that flight. Ares I-X was never to have an upper stage or the forth coming avionics for Ares I.”
No doubt, it just had no value for the cost.
” As Steve Cook once said you build the rocket you’re told to build, not the one you want.”
that is a goofy statement. But Steve Cook is an idiot RGO
tom wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
“The upperstage did not break in two…. it seperated just like we wanted it to,”
that I find hard to believe. I know that after the thing went into a flat spin the geniuses in charge said that “wow that was one of many possibilities” or something like that…but it was not the “nominal” expected sep…and that wont work for something “live”…
It doesnt matter the rocket is dead RGO
MM_NASA wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
“Delta IV heavy cannot provide access to deep space exploration. It does not have the necessary thrust.”
50,000 lbs to LEO is not enough? It was enough for the Shuttle and other rockets to build a 919,960 lb space station in LEO (the ISS). The SLS can only lift 286,600 lbs, so if you wanted a 1,000,000 lb spaceship or space station, you would still need to build it using modular construction, plus use in-space refueling.
Who’s to say you can’t launch your exploration system empty on one launch, and either fuel up or dock with a departure stage? Even Constellation had to do that, but likely they didn’t want to do too much, because then the need for really big rockets goes away.
“If we develop a vehicle from scratch with the idealogy that it can be easily modularized for different functions, this is the best course of action. This is NASA’s goal.”
Maybe someone in NASA has that as THEIR goal, but that is not an announced NASA policy. And remember, the SLS is a Senate mandated rocket, it wasn’t being driven by HEFT, Nautilus-X or any other NASA architecture that has been announced for exploration.
Besides, we already have a modular family of launchers – many in fact. Delta IV & Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V & Atlas V Heavy, and soon Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. NASA doesn’t pay for the personnel that have to maintain them, and NASA doesn’t need to spend $38B to get to the first launch.
Oh and $38B gets you 4,200,000 lbs of mass in LEO using Delta IV Heavy, or 35,568,000 lbs if you use Falcon Heavy. 35 million pounds!!!
Why do we need the SLS?
adastramike wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“Well I guess we’ll have to wait until the SLS report is released with its series of missions.”
You don’t see that as bass-ackwards? Build the rocket first, and then figure out if it’s the right size?
In the real world there would be some evidence that a larger vehicle is needed, and THEN you canvas your customer base to determine what the need really is. We’re spending $38B and HOPING that the SLS fulfills our needs for payload capacity and cost.
Did I say cost? Well of course cost. And guess who bears the cost? The NASA programs that have to use the SLS, and only NASA programs. There are no commercial clients, since NASA can’t compete against commercial providers. And the DoD/NRO have shown no inclination to build anything bigger than what can fit on a Delta IV Heavy, plus they don’t trust NASA as a launch provider.
So what NASA program(s) require 560,000 lbs of payload to LEO every year for the next couple of decades? NASA is struggling with the cost for one 14,000 lb space telescope, and you’re talking about building something 40 times bigger every year for the foreseeable future. I think you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Oh, and if a design problem creeps up after the SLS becomes operational, then your Single Point of Failure (SPoF) rocket will ground all of NASA’s SLS-only payloads for what could be years. This scenario should sound familiar (i.e. Challenger and Columbia). Oh the joys of doing things yourself.
Standardize on 50,000 lb max modular construction assemblies and you’ll have your choice of at least five different launch vehicles, and NASA can start building exploration systems today with the $16B Congress allocated for the SLS (which is now estimated to be $38B).
I see the choice as explore now with existing rockets, or wait decades and hope we still have the money to explore. I don’t want to wait.
oh, btw: ares 1 x was a colossal failure and exemplary of nasa’s dismal performance in recent years (make that decades). no way of spinning this.
MM_NASA wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
“The more of these type of “accidents†occur, the less likely NASA will trust the commercial-providers.”
I’ll save you the suspense. Just like people have died flying NASA vehicles, people will die on commercial ones. You may even die driving your car or flying on an airline. That’s life.
And just like every form of transportation is dangerous in the beginning, over time we learn to master it and make it safer. Avoiding that transition does not make it any safer, or make it any quicker.
The key is what we learn from accidents. What did we learn from Challenger? Don’t let operational tempo’s allow you to go outside your design specs. And Columbia? Don’t ignore design issues, even if it means making shutting down the system for years to fix it.
Now the good thing about NASA overseeing the commercial crew participants is that NASA can be in the position to say “no” if they don’t like what the commercial companies are doing. NASA had a hard time saying “no” to itself during the Shuttle program – it had no real adult supervision – so I think commercial crew will be safer than the Shuttle. Plus, their designs are less complex overall and safer during launch than the Shuttle.
NASA will have no one watching over their shoulder on the SLS. How safe will it be? It will only take one accident to shutdown NASA launch operations ala Shuttle. If one commercial launcher or crew provider has an accident, there will be other companies that we can still keep flying. The choice is pretty clear to me.
” As Steve Cook once said you build the rocket you’re told to build, not the one you want.”
He said that? Wow. I am not sure it is worth repeating though. On the other hand Congress is telling you (?) to build an SLS, now, aren’t they? Be afraid, very afraid. Can you imagine I’d be able to tell you what rocket to build? Yes me a blogger…
And btw the commercials build the rocket they want.
Oh well, nobody is perfect.
Ares 1-X was only there to demonstrate that NASA could design a rocket and launch it. The reason it flew was because it was on the pad so to speak when the new leadership came in. And most likely most of the money had already been spent. So why not launch the darn thing? I would have launched it too. Data is good but inexpensive data is better. Ares 1-X is not Ares-1 by far. Not even the point. Still expensive though.
Cost of Ares 1-X test flight = $400M
Cost of a Falcon 9 flight = $50M
Total cost spent on Ares 1 before the program was cancelled = $10B
Total cost of developing Falcon 9 = $390M
QED
MM_NASA wrote:
“You’re a case in point, never admit failure by the commercial-providers, but provide an excuse.”
A new commercial aerospace start up company, took their own money to increase the TRL of a future product and blew it up. Gosh, I admited it. A commercial company failed a product test with their own money.
And how much did this commercial test cost the taxpayer? You still never answered.
How much did the failed Admiral test launch of the Ares 1-x cost? 455 million plus the costs to repair the launch pad it damaged.
AGAIN, a tad bit of a difference there.
You continue:
“If this costed the lives of American astronauts, you would be singing a different tune and you can say bye-bye to your precious commercial-entity.”
Did I sing a different tune when 14 American astronauts lost their lives flying with NASA?
Did I go around like you and triumpantly sing about the bye bye of your precious NASA with joy in my heart?
You then added:
“The more of these type of “accidents†occur, the less likely NASA will trust the commercial-providers.”
Why is a commercial accident awarded quotation marks? Was it not really an accident? Was it a conspiracy? When NASA had those two shuttle “accidents” did I comment like you? Did the Nation shut down NASA for “accidents”?
The first time someone gets killed in one of those new fangled AUTO – mobiles that Ford motors is building bye bye Ford and automobiles.
The first time someone gets killed in one of those new fangled AERO – planes bye bye commercial plane builders and planes.
You are trying to sing a VERY old song of a non progressive, we can keep doing space the traditional NASA cost plus-fixed fee special interest driven, space state political way or we can try something new, it’s called progress.
We may be smart little monkeys but we still die climbing stairs and getting out of the bathtub. The more humans that pursue ANY activity the more humans that will die doing that activity. That’s life, get over it.
You finished with:
“Open your eyes, space exploration is a risky and a difficult task and it should be lead by the United States government. All comercial-providers are good at are talking the big talk, and hiding or downplaying their failures. It’s a good thing the taxpayers are not paying for their efforts – let’s keep it that way.”
It was really risky and more difficult 50 years ago, we have 50 years of institutional knowledge now and can lessen the risk and difficulty long term by increasing the players. Having a NASA monopoly will only guarantee the same results. High costs, low launch rates, little progress.
So when SpaceX where running live cameras of their launches that was trying to hide a potential failure? The posts on Armadillo, Masten and Blue Origins about every launch is about hiding? Are you on the same planet?
Everyone tries to downplay a failure, doesn’t matter if you lost a texas holdem tourney or launching a rocket. Americans are typically a can do, don’t dwell on the negative and move on kind of a people, if we were not, all those vehicles that NASA has canceled for taking to long or going over budget and never flying would be a negative for them.
Ya let’s keep it that way, a NASA monopoly that will do it the traditional cost plus, fixed fee way and after the last 30 years we can expect different results.
mr. mark wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
SpaceX had 3 failures in it’s F1 test program. Since then it has launched 2 successful F1 and had 2 out of 2 sucessful F9 and Dragon launches and is well on the way to successfully fulfilling it’s COTS program. So I don’t see any weeding out likely to happen.. CCDev2 is about testing things and hitting milestones, not weeding out.
Cheers.
Further to my comment above, I’d expect to see CCDev3 reduced to 2 or 3 companies but maybe not. May depend on how the politics goes between now and then.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
It doesnt matter the rocket is dead.
Roger that.
As I’ve written before, there are a few people running around KSC telling the public “Constellation is on hold” and “Ares I-X was a success” but anyone in their right mind knows it’s a bunch of blarney.
The Augustine Committee called out Constellation’s deficiencies, the Obama administration agreed and so did Congress.
If the loopy people want to run around deluding themselves into thinking Ares I-X was a miracle machine that flew perfectly, let them. They’re irrelevant. It’s a shame that they mislead the public into thinking Ares I-X was something it wasn’t, but once CCDev starts flying no one will care about or even remember Ares I-X.
The Augustine Committee called out Constellation’s deficiencies
While bending over backwards to accommodate them – something that was probably illegal.
Never said Ares I-X was perfect, just that it worked and we got good data from it. CxP is gone, way too bad (IMHO). But SLS will fill a good part of the void. The next admin will bring back the lunar/mars missions. Orion will fly on an EELV and SLS will launch the great payloads to LEO. SpaceX 1st Falcon 9 entered a death spin during 2nd stage flight. They also denied recontact on a Falcon 1 launch during staging (despite everyone watching it happen). They are far from perfect. Will they succeed? I hope so. But the risks we (as a nation/program) are taking will be great. The next COTS flight risks a 40 billion dollar space station on an untried vehicle. Not smart. But we will see. If they make it then Beers all around! If not, the restrictions on commercial firms will be extreme. If they damage ISS that will more or less end commercial for 20 years+. Wild ride these next few months.
Coastal Ron wrote:
NASA will have no one watching over their shoulder on the SLS. How safe will it be?
They’ll have those engineering experts on the Senate space subcommittee looking over their shoulders. I feel safer already.
tom, the Russians actually hit Mir with a Progress vehicle, yet we still let them dock at the ISS. You’re bending over backwards to see what you want to see.
@tom: “The next COTS flight risks a 40 billion dollar space station on an untried vehicle. Not smart.”
I’m sure you’ll say the same about MPCV if and when she ever flies?
Ares I-X is to Ares I what Enterprise is to Endeavour. Both were concepts. Neither was real. Time to move on.
By the way … Even if Constellation hadn’t been cancelled, do you know when the next Ares flight was scheduled after I-X? 2012. Yep, we’d still be waiting for the next concept flight. Dead, and good riddance.
Personally, my money is on the Boeing CST-100 atop the LockMart Atlas V. Known companies with a track record. Fastest and simplest way to get astronauts back on U.S. vehicles. If SpaceX or Sierra Nevada can join the party, great. But I think CST-100/Atlas V will get there first.
There is no money to go to the moon or Mars with the giant rocket, and there never was. None other than John McCain said this at the first hearing on Constellation in 2004, not because he was opposed to it, but because it was the truth. If we go at all it will be after the cost of transport to LEO is cut by at least a factor of ten.
Unlike the Progress and ATV, the Dragon only has to move in slowly and hold position while the ISS crew grapples it, so the risk is not great. There will be plenty of time during the actual flight to exercise the orbital maneuvering capabilities of the Dragon before it approaches the ISS, so flying a separate mission to do that is pointless.
There seem to be people at NASA that want the launch delayed to do additional ‘safety reviews”, but try to get out of them what they really think they can add to safety by spending a month looking at paper. Paper isn’t what’s going to berth with the ISS.
The Bad politics @ Mir should not be repeated. We got very, very, very lucky 2 times on Mir (fire and collision).
Never let the 1st flight be full up!
It’s funny. When Frank Culbertson flew on ISS he refused to do Russian Vika solid-fuel oxygen generator tests. After he told the world the problem on Mir was not so bad. Yes it was the same type of system.
The Safety folks keep a sharp eye on things that fly. SLS will get a good look see. The IV&V guy once did a great job but they have lost all credibility in the last year. The prime contractor is very bad. The effort is now more or less useless.
I agree about Boeing, behind Orion (MVCP) they will dock people 1st.
Still think SpaceX is going to get its head handed to it by congress in 2013 unless someone wins reelection.
If they damage ISS that will more or less end commercial for 20 years+.
That’s coming close to slander. There is no reason to believe Dragon is more likely to damage the ISS than MPCV. Other than the fact that MPCV may never fly…
the thing here is, if SpaceX fails with its next attempt, Boeing will move into the forefront with its CST=100. Problem there is launch cost on theAtlas V, will keep money for spaceflight still in the high zone, as no competition will exist.
I Hope SpaceX makes it and if they fail that its confined to the spacecraft and not as part of an impact or impingement to ISS. Both spacecraft have been developed differently. Different standards, histories, experience base.. etc. But we will see. MPCV will fly.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Personally, my money is on the Boeing CST-100 atop the LockMart Atlas V.”
No, no, no. You’re not supposed to mention Boeing, since that ruins the whole “NewSpace doesn’t know what they’re doing” narrative…
Dennis wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
“if SpaceX fails with its next attempt, Boeing will move into the forefront with its CST=100”
Unlikely, since SpaceX has already proven the basic performance of their capsule on a real mission to/from space, whereas Boeing is still years away from doing the same.
Also remember that this next flight is a COTS test for cargo, not crew, and SpaceX has a $1.6B contract awaiting them once they finish COTS. One failure will not stop them, especially since they already have more Dragon capsules in production to use for more testing if needed.
Regarding testing, a failure could be as simple as an inability for their on-board computer to perform one of the maneuvering tasks. Those types of issues can be fixed for the next flight, which was originally scheduled as part of COTS anyways.
Boeing is a strong contender for Commercial Crew, but SpaceX had a head start with the COTS program. I think the bigger question will be whether there is room for a third provider to be funded by NASA in the final round, and whether it will be Blue Origin or SNC’s Dream Chaser. I’m leaning towards Dream Chaser, since a winged lander could provide some interesting capabilities that capsules can’t.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
“Unlikely, since SpaceX has already proven the basic performance of their capsule on a real mission to/from space… ROFLMAOPIP— sort of like Soyuz did– 40 years ago.
Stephen C. Smith wrote:
“Ares I-X is to Ares I what Enterprise is to Endeavour. Both were concepts. Neither was real.”
Actually, Enterprise was very real. Originally, it was supposed to go back to Palmdale where it would have been refurbished as a spaceworthy Orbiter following the approach and landing test program. That plan was shelved in early 1979 because Enterprise was on the heavy side, and modifying the structure to reduce its weight and increase its payload would have been more costly than building Challenger around the structural test article (STA-099). Enterprise was later considered as a replacement for Challenger. But again, it was determined that building Endeavour from available spares was a more effective solution than refitting Enterprise. In that respect, Enterprise resembled a typical prototype aircraft. (Some prototypes are brought up to the production standard; others aren’t.)
Ares I-X was more akin to the original Saturn I (SA-I) which flew a Block I first stage with dummy upper stages.
DCSCA wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“sort of like Soyuz did– 40 years ago.”
I’m sure you sent an email to Boeing to remind them that the first flight of the 787 was preceded 106 years earlier by the Wright Brothers and their Wright Flyer I.
As usual, you excel at the inane.
tom wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 11:59 am
“The Safety folks keep a sharp eye on things that fly.”
That is so fracken funny…were they watching closely as the shuttle Columbia broke off into little parts over Big D…or did they pick it up only when MILA couldnt skin paint it…
How about Challenger…when did they start watching that one closely…or….want me to go on?
Robert G. Oler
@DCSCA: “ROFLMAOPIP— sort of like Soyuz did– 40 years ago.”
Sort of like Orion did…uhm…never.
All these “safety concerns” about the upcoming SpaceX demo are empty posturing by people who are either ideologically stuck in the past or have a vested interest.
Both ATV and HTV docked to ISS on their first flights, with HTV using a similar approach to Dragon, and nobody complained. Only when a private company is doing it everyone suddenly fears for the safety of the Station. Laughable.
No Ares 1-X was a 4 segment SRB with a dummy 5th segment.
That’s a different motor design.
Different fuel.
Different nozzle.
Different casing.
Atlas rather than Ares software.
It gathered great data on launching SRBs.
Pity it has so little in common with the 5 segment it was meant to be modelling.
Coastal Ron: “I’m leaning towards Dream Chaser, since a winged lander could provide some interesting capabilities that capsules can’t.”
The Dream Chaser is not winged, it is a lifting body. Lifting bodies were developed in the 60’s because it was assumed that leading edges would melt. But in spite of cartoons of the Dream Chaser on wheels, lifting bodies have never achieved a lift-to-drag ration sufficient to allow them to land on a runway at a realistic flight mass. So they have to land with parachutes and are really just fancy capsules. In contrast, the Shuttle, X-37, OSC Prometheus, Boeing winged OSP proposal, DynaSoar, and the SpaceShip I and II all have wings.
Unfortunately today there seem to be very few people at NASA who still understand what L/D means, or why airplanes (and real spaceplanes) have wings. In a pinch, you can do without the fuselage. But if you don’t have wings, you can’t fly.
Vulture lifting bodies have landed without parachutes. Dreamchaser is risky, but I do think they could land without a parachute. It may come in step and it may land fast but Dreamchaser is expected to be able to land on any standard runway(i.e. not the long ones the shuttle needs).
In a pinch, you can do without the fuselage. But if you don’t have wings, you can’t fly.
Tell it to the Israeli F-15 who landed with one wing. I’m sure he was glad he still had the fuselage!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body#Body_lift
tom wrote:
“The next COTS flight risks a 40 billion dollar space station on an untried vehicle. Not smart.
I agree, because we know how NASA and SpaceX will run this demonstration test. Once the Dragon capsule is in orbit, they will order a max burn and come screaming up to the ISS and then do a power brake and pull a cookie right before slamming into the docking port. I mean that is usually how they test a new vehicle when it approaches the ISS isn’t it?
From NASA.gov:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/partners/sierranevada/index.html
(Includes a photo of Dream Chaser.)
The Dream Chaser combines years of NASA analysis and wind tunnel research with Sierra Nevada’s engineering into a fully-reusable spacecraft to transport humans to low Earth orbit and then return them to Earth with a runway landing. (Emphasis added)
Elsewhere …
I’ve written about Constellation Denialism in some quarters of KSC.
I was at the KSC visitor center yesterday to watch a lecture by a visiting retired astronaut. He did a slide show about his career, then at the end started showing pretty slides of Constellation, of how it’s designed to build a permanent lunar colony, how some child alive today will walk on Mars thanks to Constellation.
And then he said, “Constellation is unfunded in the current NASA budget.”
“Unfunded.” His exact word.
I will give him credit that he did show a slide with the four CCDev candidates. But he didn’t say a word about SLS.
On flight safety:
In 1981 Shuttle SRBs had been certified to 43 deg. We had good data on that and a hot fire with a booster cold soaked to that temp. I know, I worked the Level II change request lowering the operational temp to 43 deg. If NASA had launch Challenger @ that temp or higher it would have worked (remember only one of two SRBs failed). The problem was NASA management ignoring the ground rule.
It was not the safety folks fault.
On Columbia. Remember the propellant flown liner problem? It required repairs on the orbiters. So Discovery got fixed 1st and flew with the ET/SRB stack originally build for Columbia. The ET for Discovery had some ET foam repairs done (3 areas if I remember correctly) and that ET/SRB stack is what launch Columbia. The problem and repair was reviewed by safety and based on what they had been given, approved it for flight. That repair was not done correctly. But how and what was not communicated to the safety folks. It was NASA mgt that decided not to look for a problem, not safety. If we had known about the problem @ launch, everyone would have busted a gut to get the ship home.
Spaceflight is hard. It’s complex, exacting and unforgiving.
When some commercial firms talk about spaceflight like its an airline I get worried.
From an engineering perspective Ares I-X was worth it.
Now go build your rockets.
If internet nerds want to buy $ billion holes in the desert, who can stop them? But why must we all fund them?
SpaceX, as Mr. Musk’s company is known, is years behind in testing its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule; the rocket, which operated well for most of its last demonstration flight, suffered a propulsion problem at the end.
Don’t we know it. Constellation was cancelled because it was ‘late’. Now a $ 100 billion space station teeters on the brink while we wait for these amateurs to figure it out. This is not a good place for our space program to be.
“From an engineering perspective Ares I-X was worth it. ”
People who make statements like this don’t know what they are talking about. Ares I-X was far fro worth it, there was not 1/2 billion dollars worth of data collected from it. Nor was the the data collected necessary. Right there is one of the problems with NASA, it does know how to do ROI and it should because it uses taxpayer money. NASA engineers, who work on unmanned spacecraft and ELV’s, would and do see Ares I-X as a colossal waste of money. The money could have fund a Discover class mission which would have provided much more data.
tom wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 7:35 am
About Challenger, tom said:
“The problem was NASA management ignoring the ground rule. It was not the safety folks fault.”
About Columbia, tom said:
“It was NASA mgt that decided not to look for a problem, not safety.”
Then he summarized:
“Spaceflight is hard. It’s complex, exacting and unforgiving.
When some commercial firms talk about spaceflight like its an airline I get worried.”
As an outside observer, it looks like you are in denial about the root cause of NASA’s accidents. What has changed at NASA that will prevent the same type of accidents from happening at NASA again? Oops, that darn NASA management caused another accident – oh well.
Regarding airlines, I don’t think you understand the root cause for why they are so safe. Not only do they have a regulatory agency that watches over them (unlike NASA), but their goal is to not kill off their paying customers.
NASA has no external independent oversight, and they don’t have professionals that know how to run a transportation system. Why do you think they contract out the Shuttle operations to the commercial aerospace industry? You know, the same aerospace industry that is now building commercial crew systems?
Congress is trying to force NASA to run another transportation system (the SLS), and NASA will have the same management issues that it did with the Shuttle. And the SLS won’t be cheap either, since I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but no one in Congress is telling NASA to build something that is affordable, they are only telling them to build something big.
– A lack of known customers
– A lack of known need
– A lack of cost goals
Do you see why some of us have a lack of confidence in the NASA run SLS?
But that doesn’t mean we can’t figure out a way to make it cheap. After all, air flight can be argued as being complex, exacting, and unforgiving.
You’ve listed the ways that NASA management screwed up, and that resulted in astronauts dying.
Those of us arguing for commercial submit that, just as NASA management screwed up resulting in astronaut deaths, NASA management (at least in the past) also screwed up trying to get cheap access.
And lets be blunt – when it comes to our goals in space, frankly, the single biggest issue is and should be cheap space access. Not a base on the moon, not the first humans landing on mars. No, the single biggest issue is cheap space access. Long term, that needs to be space access to any destination, but the closest, easiest, and arguable most important right now is earth orbit.
Which brings us to the real debate – is what is holding up launch prices technological, or is it deployment of the technology? If its the former, then we should put our primary focus on figuring out a suite of technologies that need to be developed to an operational status that would allow for cheap spaceflight.
If its the later, then we need to figure out a way that puts the emphasis on deploying the technology in a proper fashion.
In either case, SLS, as news reports suggest its looking like a Shuttle Derived system, serves neither purpose. It could, if they were to plan it differently, but right now, it serves no purpose in the pursuit of cheap access. And therefore, it is a waste of time, money, and effort.
Commercial Crew, OTOH, does. Commercial Crew is an attempt to figure out if its an issue of technology deployment, rather than actual technology.
And whether its Boeing that delivers, or SpaceX, or SNC – it doesn’t really matter.
Finally, one last question – since NASA has to sign off on SpaceX going forward during the test flight, do you trust NASA management to operate properly?
@tom: “Spaceflight is hard. It’s complex, exacting and unforgiving.
When some commercial firms talk about spaceflight like its an airline I get worried.”
Aerial flight is hard. It’s complex, exacting and unforgiving. Pithiness is not a substitute for reasoned consideration of this issue.
@ Das Boese wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
The funny thing is that the same people claim the US should once again be a great nation and be allowed to take some risks. But only risks that fit their agendas.
Whatever…
@ vulture4 wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
“Unfortunately today there seem to be very few people at NASA who still understand what L/D means, or why airplanes (and real spaceplanes) have wings. In a pinch, you can do without the fuselage. But if you don’t have wings, you can’t fly.”
This begs the question whether *you* know why you need, or not, L/D. Sorry but oversimplification like this kills your message. You know and the rest of us don’t? L/D is derived from the mission requirements. Not all missions require L/D. Some mission requirements may put cost and safety first and then you can kiss bye bye your L/D. Finally, L/D hypersonic is not L/D for landing. Shuttle has wings to be able to flare/land. Most the L/D from Shuttle comes from the “body”. Shuttle mostly is a lifting body whether you like it or not.
Embarrassing.
@ tom wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 7:35 am
So what are you saying that safety has an eye on every thing but it does not matter since management at NASA does not care? So why is there any safety team? What’s the point? And whatever you watch how effective will they be?
tom wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 7:35 am
“Spaceflight is hard. It’s complex, exacting and unforgiving.
When some commercial firms talk about spaceflight like its an airline I get worried.”
that is just babble.
What you are saying is that NASA safety is a great group of people but no one in management listens to them…that is probably not far from correct; ie the folks in NASA management “overrule” safety all the time…and that is part of the problem…but the other part of the problem really is that spaceflight is not hard, It is complex exacting and unforgiving but so are most technical endeavors in The Republic.
Running a nuclear reactor on a submarine XXX feet below the surface is complex exacting and unforgiving and is done by 20 somethings…why?
They have standard procedures and operating methods that are not made up “as one goes” and they have a safety system which cannot be overruled.
There is nothing “magic” about NASA being involved in human spaceflight. There are to many people, to many meetings and not enough responsibility. Name me one single solitary manager who was fired…tossed out of the agency for incompetence after Columbia. YOu cant. Had this been an airline, that person would have either been fired by the company or “ended” by the FAA.
Robert G. Oler
amightywind wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 8:06 am
“If internet nerds want to buy $ billion holes in the desert, who can stop them? But why must we all fund them?”
You’re not. The Blue Origin test vehicle that crashed was their sub-orbital one, which is funded internally.
“Constellation was cancelled because it was ‘late’.”
No, Constellation was cancelled because it not only late, but vastly over budget. Apparently money means nothing to you – what a fine fiscal conservative you are.
“Now a $ 100 billion space station teeters on the brink while we wait for these amateurs to figure it out.”
Wrong again. The problem at hand is a lack of crew transportation alternatives, not cargo. And NASA hasn’t awarded any contracts for commercial crew services, only commercial crew development (i.e. CCDev).
If Bush/Griffin had actually funded COTS-D when they proposed it back in the FY06 NASA budget, maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation. Unfortunately fixing Michael Griffin’s mistakes takes a lot longer than 2 years.
“As an outside observer, it looks like you are in denial about the root cause of NASA’s accidents. What has changed at NASA that will prevent the same type of accidents from happening at NASA again? Oops, that darn NASA management caused another accident – oh well.:”
The only thing that will stop that from happening again is independent oversight and making the bad decisions criminal. People screw up. Part of the recommendation post challenger was to have management teams recertified every two years.
No airline/aircraft or system (outside of the USAF) can and does fly like the Shuttle did. Airliners crash a bit less in the US than say Africa. Pressure to be safe, make money and oversight.
In terms of one day flying Ares I, yes the I-X mission was worth it. In terms of a later cancelled program, not so much.
You guys are right about the NASA management. Some need to be reassigned. But that’s true of people in the post office and a school.
No I don’t trust a politically driven decision like the SpaceX combined COTS flight.
The good news, this time the bad NASA manager don’t get to play with SLS after SSR (about 1 year after start). That will limit the harm they do. Now for operations… that’s different. But that will be a USA kinda thing
Commercial providers will figure it out and we could have a very happy commercial crew to LEO industry starting in the next few years. Once started, and once commercial space stations are up, it will never end. Like air travel in 1930’s
Could someone please make a “DC-3†spacecraft for crew and cargo! – That’s the goal.
“Running a nuclear reactor on a submarine XXX feet below the surface is complex exacting and unforgiving and is done by 20 somethings…why?â€
A select, very highly trained few with a ridged code of conduct and a boss who can send him to jail
“There is nothing “magic†about NASA being involved in human spaceflight.â€
Agree!
We need SLS.
NASA has used PRA since Challenger blew up, segregating QA from implementing teams with each year and mishap up to and after Columbia. What problems the agency has with safety has nothing to do with the ability of “management” to give it short shrift; the whole damned scam would give ConEd field techs a run for their money.
More likely safety diminishes as a consequence of slavish commitment to PRA and God knows how many other exercises in process-oriented butt-covering.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
tom wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 7:35 am “Spaceflight is hard. It’s complex, exacting and unforgiving. When some commercial firms talk about spaceflight like its an airline I get worried.â€
“that is just babble.”
Don’t be so hard on yourself. In fact, Tom is totally correct. But then, as Gene Cernan noted regarding ‘commercial firms’ – “They don’t know what they don’t know yet.” We can count you amongst the ‘don’t know-ers.’
..But only risks that fit their agendas.
Resist the Lilliputians. Don’t let the current Administration bring you down. Think big America!
Apparently money means nothing to you – what a fine fiscal conservative you are.
I’ll happily squeeze pennies out of pensioners but I won’t compromise on defense or NASA. A lot of us are like that.
Could someone please make a “DC-3†spacecraft for crew and cargo! – That’s the goal.
We had one. Obama just retired the space shuttle.
We need SLS.
Only when “we” means a set of people trying to keep their jobs or fanboys who like the sight of the launch vehicle analogue of a monster truck. Government funding shouldn’t be used for either.
tom wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
“We need SLS.”
For what?
Could you please list the number of missions that the SLS is being envisioned to support, and when they will likely be funded?
And please tell us why those same missions can’t fly on multiple Delta IV Heavy flights, which is how Constellation was going to do it’s lunar missions (Ares I payload docking with an Ares V payload in LEO).
What is the public getting for $38B+ and a decade or more of sitting around doing no exploration?
amightywind wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Could someone please make a “DC-3†spacecraft for crew and cargo! – That’s the goal.
We had one. Obama just retired the space shuttle.
If that’s a serious comparison, you are more out of touch with reality than I ever thought possible.
amightywind wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
“We had one. Obama just retired the space shuttle.”
Yes, I’m sure Bush issuing the order to cancel the program after the completion of the ISS had nothing to do with it.
What a maroon.
Dude, those must be some good drugs. You gotta tell me your supplier
Tom,
A few points
1. You said,
I fully agree. That is the most important goal. But then you said
How in hell does SLS get us any closer to a DC-3?
Second
The problem isn’t just a few people – there are ingrained culteral issues that propogate themselves, and that hurt the cause of space development & space settlement. For example, the belief that we can recreate Apollo is one example.
Evidence of it being politically driven?
IF NASA follows through with the plan being proposed (on places like NASAspaceflight), they’ve already done the damage.
I’ve had a long discussion about SLS with people, and I personally don’t have a problem with trying to pursue an HLV vehicle (although I tend to suspect depots will beat out an HLV any day of the week).
The problem is, NASA is doing the designing of broad swaths of the SLS. If we want an affordable HLV (yea, I know I am going to speak some herasy now), there is a way to do it – have an open competition, that encourages the development of COMMERCIALLY based HLV options, using fixed price contracts with fixed unchanging requirements, and space act agreements. What I suspect you’ll find is that you can do a vehicle that is clustering of commercial systems, that can lift the payload you want. And it would be in the realms of affordability. In short, take what was done for the development of EELVs, and build SLS around that kind of structure.
The problem is that it will result in
1. No NASA unique hardware
2. No shuttle based systems
It would look like Atlas V Phase 2, or a Delta IV growth, or even a Falcon X Heavy. And that is unaccaptable to a lot of people, because they want a system that is NASA unique, based on shuttle hardware. It’ll have no SRBs, it won’t require the use of places like Michoud, and so on.
This whole discussion reminds me of something I saw over at nasaspaceflight – someone proposed an HLV that was built around the planned Ares I upperstage, and then used Aerojet’s AJ-500 with the Ares I upperstage, to make a lower stage, that could be clustered. And someone said “That looks kinda like, an Atlas V Phase 2″ and someone responded “yea, but it’d be more politically viable” And to put it bluntly, political viability shouldn’t enter into it. Political viability hurt the shuttle, before it even took off.
Anyway, I suspect I’ve commented enough, and the point has been made.
@ amightywind wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
America thinks big and this President will be re-elected.
On the other hand if America thinks that the Shuttle was akin to the DC-3 then of course some one else may be elected. You may want to watch Idiocracy though. If any of the current fore runners for the WH in the GOP gets elected then it will be entirely appropriate. Ah and also the movie Soylent Green may help you a little. Make sure you save the nice strawberry preserve you have it might become handy in the future you want to see us all go to.
amightywind wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
We had one. Obama just retired the space shuttle.
Bush did and did any GOP members introduce a bill to stop it?
tom wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
more nonesense…in fact really goofy
“The only thing that will stop that from happening again is independent oversight and making the bad decisions criminal. People screw up. Part of the recommendation post challenger was to have management teams recertified every two years.”
what a farce “recertify”…everyone at NASA recertifies in a heart beat. What would stop another Columbia or Challenger at NASA is what stops it at a major airline or any other technical institution…a very competent safety office that has the authority to shut down the operation with no questions asked…
The “Launch” that was instructive if you love to see a dysfunctional safety system is the first launch of Collins…the one where HRC came down. There were so many problems (some of which they did not fix) but on one launch attempt there was a weather constraint. NASA was doing what it always does “seeking to certify a waiver”…and they went through two USAF met officers until they got to the MIC…and he told them EXACTLY the same thing…the next effort from the “launch director” was “can we go off line and discuss this” and the answer was “no”.
Had it been a NASA internal operation they would have “pounded flat” all objections to a waiver and launched…as it is they never found the hydrogen leak…whose existance they had waived…
“A select, very highly trained few with a ridged code of conduct and a boss who can send him to jail” goofy
the sub force is highly trained but they operate based on solid procedures where there is little “waivers’ or 500 person meetings to occupy the day.
There isnt going to be an SLS…
Your explanations of how NASA’s safety culture works is the latest sign that the goofy people are still making excuses. All of you need to be out on the bricks finding a real job RGO
“No airline/aircraft or system (outside of the USAF) can and does fly like the Shuttle did. Airliners crash a bit less in the US than say Africa. Pressure to be safe, make money and oversight.”
LOL airlines crash a lot less in the US given the number of operations vrs Africa…if the US airline industry lost planes today at the rate it lost them in the 50’s normed for the massive outburst of activity it would be like a 757 crashing every week…the difference is that the airline industry learned wahat NASA HSF never has…how to do it safely.
The first sentence you wrote is just NASA excuse making for killing 14 people (and near misses on a lot more) for really stupid reasons.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
I should have signed it Robert G. Oler
If we want an affordable HLV (yea, I know I am going to speak some herasy now), there is a way to do it
It could be affordable, but it would be unnecessary and it would therefore delay exploration (you still need a spacecraft after all) and increase the risk of cancellation. More importantly, while it would be affordable it would not reduce commercial launch prices by much even though a radical reduction in launch prices is exactly what we need. To first approximation it is the only thing we need. That is the huge opportunity cost of an HLV, and that is why it shouldn’t get any government funding. If ULA can close the case for an EELV Phase 1 once there is a competitive propellant launch market (and I think that could well be true), then it should and would do it with internal funding. Same goes for SpaceX and FH. If not, then an HLV is the wrong investment at this time. Either way the market would decide.
Hi byeman –
RGO is still waiting for an answer to his question:
“Name me one single solitary manager who was fired…tossed out of the agency for incompetence after Columbia.”
But then he probably did not address it to the right person.
Personally, I have a few questions about 39 seconds that I’d like to have answered.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
So, you want to try to compare the recent performance of Space X’s Dragon (which has flown one orbital carrying a wheel of cheese) to the 40-plus years of performance in human spaceflight of Soyuz, carrying living crews up to and back from earth orbit with a comparative analogy of the Boeing 787 to the Wright Flyer, eh? ROFLMAOPIP Inane, indeed. And FYI, maroon is a color; lifting its use as a slang term from ancient cartoons does little to enhance your arguments.
$57 Billion for SLS
$57 Billion for a rocket
$57 Billion not going towards exploration, development, or settlement.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903648204576555010831469864.html
Quoting from the article
Thats a cost growth of over 500% from last year’s Authorization claims.
And this is acceptable?
Heh, this article was written by none other than Andy Pasztor, who may have to change his tune faster than you can say SLS shill.
@ Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
“Thats a cost growth of over 500% from last year’s Authorization claims.
And this is acceptable?”
Of course it is if you print the bills. What they meant really was it’ll cost $16B in Congress. $16B in Congress has as much value as $57B. As we all know they are the champions at balancing the budget. So why not? We’ll cut medicare and social security and transfer the money to SLS. Or something like that and it goes to show that we should accelerate SLS and MPCV but of course that we don’t know what we don’t know. Now am I making sense?
If I do maybe I ought to seek a seat in Congress.
“$57 Billion for SLS”
Why is anyone surprised? Take the $38B starting value and apply the percentage cost overrun for Ares I and what do you get? Apply the percentage cost overrun for MSL, or JWST, or space station and you get a lot more than $57B. NASA can’t do cost containment.
RGO is still waiting for an answer to his question:
“Name me one single solitary manager who was fired…tossed out of the agency for incompetence after Columbia.â€
The ET program manager @ MSFC – not retired. gone
FYI I knew a few of the 14 killed on Columbia and Challenger. No one wanted them killed.
Challenger happened after let STS. Columbia when I was working ISS. Had I been a part of STS I would have spoken up. Some did! Remeber that! SOME DID!
I have been @ STS and ISS FRRs when the question is asked “is anyone not ready to goâ€. That question goes to the managers and the engineers. Yes, I once spoke up about deep concerns with Boeing developed s/w that I thought was going to kill people on orbit. You got the balls to do that. Put it all on the line for the safety on a crew? Stand up in front of the programs highest management, a major contractor and call his baby ugly (and a killer). Well I have!! Tell us what you did to put it all on the line for honor, integrity and a crew?
DCSCA wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
“So, you want to try to compare the recent performance of Space X’s Dragon to the 40-plus years of performance in human spaceflight of Soyuz…”
Senility is really setting in with you – you’re having a hard time remembering what people say. Maybe getting out into the daylight will help?
Actually you’re the one comparing them to “40-plus years of performance”.
I said “SpaceX has already proven the basic performance of their capsule on a real mission to/from space”, which they have. It’s a simple fact, so no need to get jealous.
What SpaceX and the aerospace community are showing is that capabilities that used to be reserved for nations can now be accomplished by companies. Payload rockets were the first, next up is LEO cargo capability, and in just a few years crew to LEO.
Most people would be happy that space travel is becoming less expensive and more open, but I suspect that you aren’t “most people”.
But that’s OK, because no one that matters listens to your prognostications.
“And FYI, maroon is a color”
And also a people. But in your case you qualify for the Bugs Bunny definition. What a Maroon!
amightywind wrote @ September 6th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
“I’ll happily squeeze pennies out of pensioners but I won’t compromise on defense or NASA. A lot of us are like that.”
Well, that explains a lot.
There’s no such thing as “CCDev 3″ and every time you use it you demonstrate how ignorant you are.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ September 7th, 2011 at 12:42 am
“… space travel is becoming less expensive and more open…”
Except it isn’t. As Tom says, ‘spacefight is very hard.’ but then, you’re one of those Cernan likes to cite- “They don’t know what they don’t know yet.” And, of course, lest you need reminded, SpaceX has not launched, orbited and safely returned ANYBODY. But ah… the personal attacks indicate you have no valid arguments — in other words, you have no position to advocate other than to shill for SpaceX, which has flown nobody and never will. Or for Warner Bros. animated shorts- both of which deal in fantasies, not the real world, which is the only way Bugs gets into space– and crews aboard a Dragon as well– in animated featurettes.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ September 7th, 2011 at 12:42 am
“I said “SpaceX has already proven the basic performance of their capsule on a real mission to/from spaceâ€, which they have.” WEll, alert the press- If your goal is to orbit wheels of cheese. If it is to sustain human life for LEO space travel, no, it has not. But you go on believing it has. It’s amusing.
Politico has an article on the dichotomy of Sen. Shelby claiming to be a fiscal hawk, but grabbing for the pork with emphasis on the SLS debacle.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62767.html
tom wrote @ September 7th, 2011 at 12:20 am
“I have been @ STS and ISS FRRs when the question is asked “is anyone not ready to goâ€.”
The problem is the NASA doesn’t know how to build and run a transportation system in the first place. It’s not part of their charter, and it’s not what they are staffed to do. Saying “no” may stop a bad launch, but there are a vast number of bad decisions that should have been addressed years before that point.
Why did the SRB’s have cold sensitive joints? Why is it that ice chunks are still striking the orbiter on every launch? Why is there bad software in an operational vehicle? These are not launch day decisions – they should have been addressed years earlier.
NASA does unique missions better than anyone else. But that culture is not the right culture for doing everyday routine tasks safely. Stop forcing NASA to do things that it doesn’t do well.
Why did the SRB’s have cold sensitive joints? Why is it that ice chunks are still striking the orbiter on every launch? Why is there bad software in an operational vehicle?
The SRB joint issue was addressed in 1987. Over 200 SRBs have performed flawlessly since then. Give it a rest. The Space Shuttle Flight software group had the highest CMMI rating possible. Flight software is one of NASA’s great strengths. You aren’t an engineer, are you?
The Space Shuttle Flight software group had the highest CMMI rating possible.
That doesn’t say much as CMMI is mostly useless. The Shuttle flight software group was no doubt very good however. Was, since they’ve apparently been let go.
tom wrote @ September 7th, 2011 at 12:20 am
“The ET program manager @ MSFC – not retired. gone” and not one of the people who made the bad decisions.
“FYI I knew a few of the 14 killed on Columbia and Challenger. No one wanted them killed.”
Lots of laugh. Linda H babbles that all the time as does any small child who does something wrong and most people convicted of every crime… “I didnt mean to do it” as if that is suppose to make us all feel better and do a “V8″ slap and say “wow that all makes it better go and sin no more”
But of course old Linda didnt want to miss her T times.
“Challenger happened after let STS. Columbia when I was working ISS. Had I been a part of STS I would have spoken up. Some did! Remeber that! SOME DID!”
And were ignored…my point exactly
“I have been @ STS and ISS FRRs when the question is asked “is anyone not ready to goâ€.
Of course more babble “anyone can stop a launch just raise their hands”. it is almost Casablanca like “Sorry Rick I just discovered gambling is going on here I have to shut you down…..your winnings Major”
I am sure in the little cubby holes of MOD and other places people really do believe this RGO
“The SRB joint issue was addressed in 1987. Over 200 SRBs have performed flawlessly since then. Give it a rest.
Of course, we will never truly know if the modifications that were made fixed the problem because no shuttle was launched in cold weather after Challenger. I wonder why?
amightywind wrote @ September 7th, 2011 at 10:29 am
“Over 200 SRBs have performed flawlessly since then.”
Then how come they kept flying with ice chunks smacking the orbiter on take-off?
The CAIB had it right when they said that the Shuttle was still an experimental vehicle. The SLS, if it ever gets built, will be in the same situation since NASA has not addressed the fundamental reasons leading up to the Challenger and Columbia accidents.
Instead of relying on a government-run rocket that has no backup, we need to be relying on the open market. Capitalists recognize this, but apparently you don’t.
“You aren’t an engineer, are you?”
Luckily not a software one like you. I’m a manufacturing professional, so I look at the costs of things, and that’s why I know that the SLS will be the worst financial diaster in NASA’s history. It will be the end of NASA’s HSF efforts.
The SLS must die in order for NASA to live…
@ almightywind
“I’ll happily squeeze pennies out of pensioners but I won’t compromise on defense or NASA. A lot of us are like that.”
AARP would eat you alive.
Really. DoD has plenty of lobbyists and can, well, defend itself.
NASA, however, doesn’t need to put put into a position where it even *seems* to be trampling on the elderly.
@Trent Waddington: “There’s no such thing as ‘CCDev 3′ and every time you use it you demonstrate how ignorant you are.”
CCDev certainly was supposed to go into third rounds at the end of this year, though not sure what became of it in the regime of continuing resolutions and following this brouhaha.
@ almightywind
“I’ll happily squeeze pennies out of pensioners but I won’t compromise on defense or NASA. A lot of us are like that.â€
You do realize that people drawing pensions now are the ones that were working back in the 60’s/70’s during Apollo and so are the very ones in your mind who made this country great, right?
So, you will be taking pensions away from people like Neil Armstrong.