Congress, NASA, White House

Senators claim administration seeking to “undermine America’s manned space program”

This morning Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Bill Nelson (D-FL), the ranking member of the full Senate Commerce Committee and chairman of its space subcommittee, respectively, issued a press release about the status of the administration’s plans (or lack thereof) for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket. The press release came in response to a Wall Street Journal article earlier this week that claimed the administration was suffering from “sticker shock” about the potential development cost of the SLS, as well as the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), and other exploration systems. That article warned that the total cost of those systems could exceed $62 billion through 2025, particularly through the use of an unspecified “accelerated” approach.

Hutchison and Nelson, in their release, argue that the leaked cost estimate is just another step by the administration to stall development of the SLS. “No one has proposed to accelerate development,” they write. “We and others have – repeatedly – demanded that the administration’s budget office simply follow the development plan that the President signed into law last year.” They claim that NASA’s internal cost studies, and the independent assessment performed by Booz Allen Hamilton, had validated the plan for the SLS, and that the White House “should proceed immediately according to the reasonable, achievable development timetable embedded in federal law, and preserve America’s pre-eminence in space science.”

193 comments to Senators claim administration seeking to “undermine America’s manned space program”

  • “should proceed immediately according to the reasonable, achievable development timetable embedded in federal law, and preserve America’s pre-eminence in space science.”

    The ultimate logical paradox and oxymoron since SLS is the one thing that will undermine “America’s pre-eminence in space science”

  • Coastal Ron

    Hutchison and Nelson know what’s coming down the road from the House, which is a whole lot of budget cuts. And programs that haven’t started yet are much easier to cut than programs that have large financial commitments. They’re just getting desperate.

    The more interesting thing is that Hutchison and Nelson are not fazed by an independent report that shows the cost of a new program ballooning from $16B to $62B before it even starts. Wow!

    In normal times projected overruns like that would cause the various congressional oversight committees to call hearings and accuse the sitting NASA Administrator of program mismanagement. In this case, since the SLS is the Senate’s design and not NASA’s, who are they going to blame? NASA of course, for not covering up their mistakes quick enough.

    I can’t wait for this manufactured drama to be over.

  • Mark Whittington

    Talking about stating the obvious.

  • common sense

    As Robert some time ago suggested ;) we can see the emergence of a new party.

    The Repucratic party or the Demoblican party. It goes by both names. This new party has reached a consensus in hypocrisy and its members cross the usual party lines and define a new paradigm. We do not need any reasonable thinking to put the country back on track. We only need cash and we will suck all the cash the US has left into keeping the status quo and plunge ever deeper into a recession.

    Finally the light at the end of the tunnel. However someone once said it might be the oncoming train (wreck).

    Anywho.

  • MrEarl

    The reason the senators are not fazed is because they know the $62B figure is total BS. How “independent” can the review be if all Booze Allen is doing is checking NASA’s figures. Figures NASA management are putting out to deliberately make the SLS as expensive as possible.
    I would be interested to see what a truly independent review by analysts that are familure with launch vehicles and can get their information independent of NASA.

    I have to give it to Holdren, Bolden and Garver; they are crossing all the T’s and dotting all the I’s to kill SLS.

  • rpatituc

    If the US could spend $30 billion a month in Iraq, I dont see a problem spending
    $60 billion over 15 years in the US on the US Space program!

  • josh

    that’s entertainment:D

  • Major Tom

    “‘No one has proposed to accelerate development,’ they write. ‘We and others have – repeatedly – demanded that the administration’s budget office simply follow the development plan that the President signed into law last year.'”

    Are Hutchison and Nelson (or their staffs) really this stupid? SLS development _has_ to be accelerated to meet the SLS schedule in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. The Act required an IOC of 2016. SLS, as proposed by NASA, doesn’t deliver an unmanned IOC until 2017 or a manned IOC until 2021. By examining acceleration options, the Administration is trying to meet the schedule the Senators put in their Act. Hutchison and Nelson are throwing baseless, 180-degree wrong, accusations at a White House that’s trying to help them. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb…

    With these and prior cost estimates, I don’t think either Congress or the White House should even be considering SLS or Shuttle-derived HLV options anymore. But if certain Senators still want to pursue it, they shouldn’t blame the White House for trying to find a way to make the SLS schedule actually fit what was written into law. Goofy…

    “the White House ‘should proceed immediately according to the reasonable, achievable development timetable embedded in federal law…'”

    What part of “SLS can’t achieve that timetable without utterly unreasonable budget increases” don’t these people understand?

    Sigh…

  • E.. Grondine

    Hi CR –

    There’s nothing manufactured here, except a real problem that was caused by ATK’s greed in its attempt to monopolize the manned launch market.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Mr. Earl –

    Holdrin, Bolden, and Garver agreed to DIRECT. It was ATK’s delaying tactics for their 5 segs that has brought this on, just as it was their 5 segs that got us into this mess in the first place.

    Unlike many, I don’t have the luxury of looking away. I just can’t stop watching.

    I think it was Lincoln who said “If there’s a place worse than hell I’m in it.”

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 11:46 am

    “Figures NASA management are putting out to deliberately make the SLS as expensive as possible.”

    Come on now.

    Are you saying that these figures are coming out of all the NASA leadership? Even those who actually want an SLS? And that it is a conspiracy to derail the program that some NASA leaders actually want? Are you serious?

    Or are you suggesting that Bolden/Garver/Holdren take the numbers given to them by the various centers involved and then massage the numbers to make it appear more expensive, just on their own and that no one can call them up on that?

    MrEarl, it is one thing to want an SLS real bad and it is another thing to run baseless slander.

    On the other hand if you have any proofs for your allegations I would love to see them.

  • common sense

    “What part of “SLS can’t achieve that timetable without utterly unreasonable budget increases” don’t these people understand?”

    They will soon understand since by law cuts are coming no matter what. They will suffer the rules of the game of their own making. Supreme irony. Sad that the US public has to suffer even more to stay afloat in those difficult times.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 11:46 am

    How “independent” can the review be if all Booze Allen is doing is checking NASA’s figures.

    I don’t know if you’ve read it, but here is what the Booz Allen report says the report is:

    NASA engaged Booz Allen Hamilton to perform independent assessments of cost and schedule estimates (hereafter referred to as Independent Cost Assessments, or ICAs) developed by the Space Launch System (SLS), Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), and 21st Century Ground System (21CGS) Programs, and to assess the sufficiency of reserves contained in the estimates. It is important to note that an ICA is not a cost estimate, but rather, it is an assessment of existing cost estimates and the documentation and practices used to generate them.

    Booz Allen checked the methodology that NASA used to derive those figures, and they said for program years 6 & on that that NASA is likely UNDER-ESTIMATING how much the SLS will cost. Not that NASA is inflating the cost, but that if anything the opposite is true.

    Now if Booz Allen came back and said that NASA was over-estimating how much it would cost, you would be singing a different tune, right?

    And notice that the Senate hasn’t volunteered to have their budget numbers evaluated in the same way. Wouldn’t that show NASA how wrong they are, and embarrass Bolden/Garver/Holdren?

    Where are the Senate’s so called “experts” that designed the SLS in the first place? Why aren’t they providing their documentation for how the SLS can be built for $16B in five years? What have they got to hide?

  • Major Tom wrote:

    Hutchison and Nelson are throwing baseless, 180-degree wrong, accusations at a White House that’s trying to help them. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb…

    They’ve backed themselves into a corner with their inane plan and don’t know how to get themselves out. That’s the bottom line here.

  • Vladislaw

    MrEarl wrote:

    “The reason the senators are not fazed is because they know the $62B figure is total BS. How “independent” can the review be if all Booze Allen is doing is checking NASA’s figures. Figures NASA management are putting out to deliberately make the SLS as expensive as possible.”

    Did you even actually read the Executive Summary put out ba Booze Allen?

    It showed that there was no documentation.. AT ALL … for some of NASA’s estimates, no paper trail, at all. So tell me, how you do verify an estimate with no paper work supporting how you came up with those numbers?

    They also stated that NASA said savings would be achieved in the out years by increased efficiencies… ya right, tell me, how many projects have NASA started and would be safe for funding because efficiences, in the future, would make up any budget shortfall.

    It is exactly what we have here, the Senate saying build it for this much, then saddle it would costs that by themselves blow the budget before it starts.

  • John

    The Senators can just tell NASA to start the project within the timeline NASA gave. 2017 it is. Start now please! Then what will NASA say?

  • Alex

    I want to become a Senator just so I can write angry letters whenever the numbers don’t agree with my personal wants and desires.

    “Dear Chase Financial,

    Please stop stalling and immediately approve me for a new, low-interest credit line of $10,000. Those multiple, independent reports claiming my credit score is 475 are a lie.”

  • Egad

    > Are Hutchison and Nelson (or their staffs) really this stupid?

    This is something that has puzzled me considerably for some months now. Whether looked at from the programmatic, fiscal or even political (you’d think they’d know about political if nothing else) point of view, the actions of the Senate proponents of SLS seem ill-advised just in their own terms. Why is that?

  • Coastal Ron

    John wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    The Senators can just tell NASA to start the project within the timeline NASA gave.

    No, the Senate can’t. Congress can, but since Congress is made up of both the House and the Senate, we’ll have to see what happens.

    How do fiscally conservative Republicans justify bumping up the budget for a program yet to start from $16B to $62B? How many Tea Party Republicans will sign on to that, especially if they’re not from states that have NASA centers?

  • Matt Wiser

    Agree with Sens. Hutchinson and Nelson. This Administration, going back to Candidate Obama, is anti-NASA and anti-Human exploration. And there’s two related articles:

    http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/news/senators-think-obama-undermines-space-program/article_95154ad4-1ea3-5e82-9c1f-94e3ec72097a.html

    http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/09/heavy-lift_rocket_supporters_s.html&sa=X&ei=VgtpTsKxE8PZiAKl2bmmDg&ved=0CDUQ-AsoATAA&usg=AFQjCNEdK5FRNFACKqNzrorVCEJpLwU4bA

    Stop stalling, and start issuing contracts and, as “America’s favorite Drill Sergeant,” R. Lee Ermey says, “Get with the PROGRAM!” If the Administration wants a fight, they’ll get one. And they will lose, just as they lost when their original FY 11 Budget was rejected (It never made it out of Committee).

  • common sense

    @ John wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    “The Senators can just tell NASA to start the project within the timeline NASA gave.”

    Nope the Senators cannot tell NASA to do anything. Only the WH can tell NASA what to do.

    “2017 it is. Start now please! Then what will NASA say?”

    Is that supposed to make any sense?

  • “If the Administration wants a fight, they’ll get one. And they will lose, just as they lost when their original FY 11 Budget was rejected (It never made it out of Committee).”
    And so the wish justifying rationalization continues unabated, with a “reality be damned” attitude. Ignoring that the debt ceiling legislation is an already ticking time bomb.

  • common sense

    “And they will lose, just as they lost when their original FY 11 Budget was rejected (It never made it out of Committee).”

    Are you that difficult to understand anything? In what way did the WH lose? SLS and MPCV are dead. DEAD.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Matt you keep forgetting the golden rule about politicians – if their mouths are moving, they are lying. Here’s what really happened with NASA’s FY11 Budget proposal:

    1. Cancel Constellation (Approved)
    2. Extend the life of the ISS (Approved)
    3. Fund Commercial Crew (Approved)
    4. Keep the Orion as the MPCV (Approved)

    Now what the Administration didn’t want was the SLS, but since the Senators that proposed it stated that it was to preserve jobs, it’s not unexpected to get Congressional support after canceling such a large program like Constellation.

    You keep focusing on the things that don’t matter, like what people say. All that matters is what Congress funds, and since the President got most of what he wanted, it was a victory.

    Regarding SLS, sure it’s funded for $16B, but NASA thinks it will cost $38B, and it could balloon up to $62B if NASA has to follow the law regarding when the SLS has to be operational. Congress has to approve that kind of massive increase.

    Slipping the SLS into the FY11 budget as a jobs program worked last year, but now that everyone can see that it’s a financial black hole, and that it has no defined use, I think it’s on a collision course with cancellation.

    No fiscal conservative will stand up and ask for a 4X increase to cover budget overruns for a program that hasn’t even started.

  • Vladislaw

    Matt Wiser wrote:

    “Agree with Sens. Hutchinson and Nelson. This Administration, going back to Candidate Obama, is anti-NASA and anti-Human exploration. And there’s two related articles:”

    The first link you provided was from 2011 not from the time President Obama was campaigning and was ONE Senator, hardly a Senatorial ground swell supporting your position. Did you read all of the ONE comments to that first link? It was against your position.

    How is creating 4 companies competing to put NASA astronauts into space and calling for 3 billion in heavy lift funding above the 25 million Dr. Griffin funded during Constellation anti space exploration?

    The second link didn’t work so I can not comment on that.

  • @Common Sense
    “Are you that difficult to understand anything? In what way did the WH lose? SLS and MPCV are dead. DEAD.”

    It’s no use. They were told the same thing over and over again about Ares I. And they never admitted the hand writing was on the wall until it was formally ended. The very act of their not wanting to believe it makes it so in their minds. It’s more a religion than a cause to them. Even though the evidence is already there, they will not admit it (even to themselves) until it is a historical fait accompli.

  • William Mellberg

    Matt Wiser wrote:

    “This Administration, going back to Candidate Obama, is anti-NASA and anti-Human exploration.”

    Maybe that would change if Jimmy Hoffa were put in charge of NASA. Unionize NASA’s engineers, technicians and astronaut corps, and President Obama might be more supportive.

    Seriously …

    Why is it that some people think Kay Bailey Hutchison is trying to “save pork” while Jimmy Hoffa is trying to “protect workers”? President Obama thanked and praised Jimmy Hoffa on Monday. Why doesn’t he thank and praise Senator Hutchison for trying to protect livelihoods, too? Why should a space worker’s job be any less important than a Teamsters member’s job? (Think campaign contributions.) As usual, the Left embraces double standards. Case in point: Obama denounced Rick Perry’s use of the word “treasonous” … but he has remained silent about Jimmy Hoffa’s thuggish call to “take out” the President’s political opponents.

    Sadly, America’s space program has become increasingly politicized under this ideological Administration. But so has everything else. And the cost to the American economy — and to millions of unemployed people — has been enormous. Social engineering often carries a very heavy price tag.

    Matt Wiser added:

    “If the Administration wants a fight, they’ll get one. And they will lose …”

    This Administration has a poor track record when it comes to picking winners and losers in the private sector. Take the Chevy Volt, for example. And Solyndra.

    Where are all those Volt sales? And what happened to all of those “green” jobs President Obama was talking about at Solyndra?

    Economic reality has a way of derailing utopian dreams.

    Now let’s see … who was it that talked about “retiring on Mars”?

  • Egad

    Somehow this item reminded me of the present discussion:

    http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Docs/Sep-Oct11/Ward.pdf

  • amightywind

    Browbeating these shameless people won’t work. After 9 months of foot dragging they will produce an in-actionable plan and congress will howl! The Senate would be wiser to ask for resignations. Like my old dad used to say, “s**t or get off the pot!”

  • amightywind

    Oh, and by the way. Nelson has officially thrown Obama under the bus, after clinking campaign glasses in Air Force One with him to the Cape last year. The unemployed denizens of the space coast know that Nelson helped kill the Cape.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    but he has remained silent about Jimmy Hoffa’s thuggish call to “take out” the President’s political opponents.

    As Sarah Palin would say, Lock and Load!

    But so has everything else [become politicized]

    Oh, and the 8 years of Bush 43 were politically even handed? What a laugh! If you think one party is any different than the other, than you are truly politically naive. Why do you think the public keeps flushing them out of power every couple of years?

    Now let’s see … who was it that talked about “retiring on Mars”?

    Most of America was built by people that spent their own time or money to make their dreams come true, so I think it’s funny how you berate someone that has such a vision, whereas you deride politicians for lacking one.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t depend on politicians for envisioning the future I want.

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “As Sarah Palin would say, Lock and Load!”

    In Tucson last January, President Obama eloquently denounced such rhetoric and called for an end to it. But he seems to overlook such remarks whenever they come from his supporters. Maxine Waters, for instance.

    I will agree with you on this much, however … there is no shortage of hypocrisy among politicians. And their vision rarely extends beyond the next election. That goes for both parties. Which, perhaps, is why we’ve never had a clear, long-term agenda for space.

    “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

    — Winston Churchill

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “Most of America was built by people that spent their own time or money to make their dreams come true, so I think it’s funny how you berate someone that has such a vision …”

    I don’t berate Mr. Musk. On the contrary, I admire what he has accomplished, and I look forward to his future achievements. But I don’t take hyperbole seriously. And his “retiring on Mars” remark was pure hype. Hype isn’t vision.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Which, perhaps, is why we’ve never had a clear, long-term agenda for space.

    That’s part of it. The other part is that there is no clear “National Imperative” to focus on. The Moon, Mars, asteroids? Yes, we want to go EVERYWHERE. But we don’t have a NEED to go anywhere, at least not a universally recognized one.

    That’s why I don’t subscribe to the hope that some have in a politician uttering words that will unite the space community. It won’t happen because their words will not have changed our desires without some outside influence.

    For instance, why didn’t Obama’s choice of an asteroid as NASA’s next destination win you and others over? For the same reasons that Bush didn’t win over people when he chose the Moon before other destinations – it was just a CHOICE, not a widely recognized NEED. We don’t need to go to the Moon next, nor an asteroid or Mars. It would be nice, but there are no universally recognized consequences if we don’t do one before the other. I know people that would say going nowhere would be the right choice.

    Because of that lack of clarity, I have determined that the only way we’ll leave Earth is by doing the same things that lead us to conquer and explore the unknown in our history – because we can, and because there are business reasons to do it.

    Sure exploration will be part of it, and government spending (i.e. NASA) will do it’s part for supporting new industries like it always has. I don’t think it will be fast, but I do know that NASA’s paltry budget won’t increase, so it’s better to use that money to partner with the commercial sector than NASA doing it all alone.

    That’s why I focus on cost, and not destinations as the big indicator. Lower the cost, and we’ll do more in space. Increase the costs (like with the SLS) and we’ll do less. I want to do more, so of course I oppose the SLS. What do you want to do – more or less in space?

  • tom

    Congress and the Senate are going to provide whatever moneies are needed to make SLS happen. Part of why NASA will not give the numbers out is to keep that from happening. If NASA gets every dollar they ask for what possible reason will they give for not starting now?

    If Lori had thought out her plan she would have proposed NASA keep Orion and build an inspace crewed spacecraft like Nautilus-X. Based @ ISS and used for missions to the moon and anyplace else within a few million miles. The 1st of its kind, a real exploration spacecraft. This would leave all launch vehicles (big and small) to the commercial world, give NASA engineers and contractors a worthy program and the US a world class capability. But that’s not what happened. Now we fight for a heavy lift rocket to keep NASA in the game. But it’s not too late. Be bold Lori! Give us a ship!

  • common sense

    “What do you want to do – more or less in space?”

    I want more, more more, more more more. And if we only stopped the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan (not sure about Libya though) we could redirect those enormous expenses into a real mind blowing, god defying rocket. Yes we could! I even believe we do not have to stop the wars. We can just halt all medicaid and social security payment and we would have the cash with the bonus of running the wars we cherish so much. Now get this. We could even have nuclear powered spaceships that would bring us to Alpha Centauri before this decade is over.

    How’s that? Unifying some?

    I did not know where to put global warming though. Ah yes I know we transfer all the work to NOAA. Wait, they’ll need the budget. So no. We cancel all Earth science, what the heck! Homo Sapiens has been around way before satellites and they even survived what killed the dinosaurs! Way to go Homo Sapiens. One might argue the “sapiens” thingy though.

  • @ rpatituc:

    “If the US could spend $30 billion a month in Iraq, I dont see a problem spending $60 billion over 15 years in the US on the US Space program!”

    If questionable policy B is costing a sliver of questionable policy A, does that alone, somehow make policy B less questionable? Do you not want to get the most space development/exploration for that money?

    Iraq, or anything else with a bigger budget, is irrelevant to this issue.

  • red

    This Administration, going back to Candidate Obama, is anti-NASA and anti-Human exploration.”

    Is that why the FY11 budget proposed increasing the NASA budget, getting rid of the unaffordable Constellation program that was getting nowhere but destroying the rest of NASA, and replacing it with:

    – extending the Shuttle
    – advanced in-space propulsion flagship technology demonstration mission
    – propellant storage and transfer flagship technology demonstration mission
    – inflatable habitat and closed-loop life support flagship technology demonstration mission
    – aerocapture flagship technology demonstration mission
    – space tug to position flagship technology demonstration missions and service ISS
    – greatly increased exploration technology development in areas like lunar volatiles characterization, high-power electric propulsion, autonomous precision landing, telerobotics, and fission power systems
    – easily enough funding for more exploration technology developments and demonstration missions if the above missions met their generous proposed cost targets
    – keeping the ISS
    – adding capabilities to the ISS
    – more funding to use the ISS
    – adding tests to the COTS cargo schedule
    – purchasing commercial crew transportation services
    – revival of NASA Earth science missions
    – greatly increased human research funding
    – robotic precursor missions to the Moon, NEAs, Mars, and its moons to look for resources and hazards for astronauts (i.e. like LRO)
    – various “scout” robotic precursor missions to these destinations (i.e. like LCROSS)
    – robotic precursor instruments for non-robotic-precursor missions
    – robotic precursor data analysis, research, sensor technology development, etc
    – U.S. Pu-238 production
    – U.S. version of RD-180 engine
    – greatly increased general space technology development funding
    – general space technology demonstration missions
    – revival of NIAC
    – increase in aeronautics funding
    – heavy lift propulsion development and research
    – funding for Centennial Challenge prizes
    – increase in SBIR/STTR funding
    – NASA center innovation funds
    – 500 space technology scholarships
    – small satellite technology development
    – small satellite technology demonstration missions
    – comprehensive KSC modernization
    – increase for NEO search

  • Martijn Meijering

    Be bold Lori! Give us a ship!

    Ah, the old gimme, gimme, gimme attitude. NASA as an entitlement program.

  • Here’s an interesting article called How the US Government Chose to Ruin the James Webb Space Telescope, and Blamed NASA:
    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/09/how_the_us_government_chose_to.php

    A publication could have just as well been published a similar themed article in relation to SLS and titled it How Some Senators Chose to Ruin U.S. Manned Spaceflight by Designing an Overly Expensive Rocket and Blamed it on NASA.

  • @Common Sense
    “Homo Sapiens has been around way before satellites and they even survived what killed the dinosaurs!

    Humorous, but the dinosaurs died out 65 million years before humans came onto the scene. But I suspect you knew that and that is part of the ironic humor. However, it’s possible some people who seriously suggest equally ludicrous opinions (such as some opinions we have seen here about “God defying rockets”) may not know any better. So I will tell them right now, “He’s just joking!” :)

  • Case in point!
    “If Lori had thought out her plan she would have proposed NASA keep Orion and build an inspace crewed spacecraft like Nautilus-X.”
    Why would you need Orion for that when Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser etc, could take more people per flight to build and crew the Nautilus-X for far less development money and flight operations costs? Why not use a thermonuclear bomb to kill a mouse? :)

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron asked:

    “For instance, why didn’t Obama’s choice of an asteroid as NASA’s next destination win you and others over?”

    Well, speaking only for myself, I would say it’s because NEOs don’t really provide any footholds for traveling beyond. They’re moving targets and one-shot opportunities. Interesting to visit, perhaps. But here today, gone tomorrow. And very expensive for such brief encounters. The Moon, on the other hand, is a nearby (more cost effective) destination that offers many opportunities to develop and test new technologies for “living off the land” and doing some basic science and exploration at the same time. But we’ve been through all of those reasons before.

    Coastal Ron opined:

    “We don’t need to go to the Moon next, nor an asteroid or Mars. It would be nice, but there are no universally recognized consequences if we don’t do one before the other. I know people that would say going nowhere would be the right choice.”

    So do I. When it comes right down to it, most people I know would probably say that going nowhere would suit them just fine. In fact, I wrote an op-ed piece on that very topic more than 20 years ago; and not much has changed since then.

    The bottomline is that it is very difficult to demonstrate a genuine “need” for space exploration. It’s even more difficult in tough economic times like these. Which is why Wernher von Braun famously said that the most important factor in sending humans to the Moon was “the will to do it.”

    Had it not been for the Cold War, I question whether or not there’d be human footprints on the Moon today. Robot tracks, for sure. But footprints?

    I happen to believe that we can derive many intangible benefits from space exploration, including human exploration. However, it is hard to place a monetary value on those benefits or to promise any short-term ROIs. I guess it falls under what George H.W. Bush used to call “the vision thing.”

    But vision means nothing without will. As the old saying goes, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Without the will …

    Coastal Ron added:

    “That’s why I focus on cost …”

    I agree. Cost is certainly a major factor, and we need to get as much bang out of each buck as possible. Moreover, I appreciate the various efforts to do so. But as aircraft designer Jim Floyd has noted, “Anyone who imagines that high technology runs cheap doesn’t understand the subject.”

  • red

    “If Lori had thought out her plan she would have proposed NASA keep Orion and build an inspace crewed spacecraft like Nautilus-X. Based @ ISS and used for missions to the moon and anyplace else within a few million miles. The 1st of its kind, a real exploration spacecraft. This would leave all launch vehicles (big and small) to the commercial world, give NASA engineers and contractors a worthy program and the US a world class capability.”

    It’s a deal.

    Include an inflatable habitat flagship technology demonstration mission at the ISS, delivered by the AR&D vehicle, as proposed in FY11. Add centrifuge capability to that demo or a follow-on one. Do the FY11 in-space propulsion flagship technology demonstration mission and even more capable technology development work in that area feeding into later in-space demos and then Nautilus-X. Similarly, feed the FY11 propellant storage and transfer flagship technology demonstration into use on the in-space craft. You could even remove the aerocapture flagship demo if the funds were needed for Orion and Nautilus-X.

    Launch it all on commercial rockets, and include other commercial services as appropriate (possibly hab modules, etc).

  • Matt Wiser

    red: in case you haven’t heard, the FY 11 budget you quote was disposed of by Congress. One of the reasons it was disposed of was NO MISSIONS other than ISS. Which is what Congress did not like. Do you remember the pushback the Administration got? It was fast, furious, and nasty. As it should’ve been. Even that “space summit” with POTUS’ speech was just a bunch of people singing from the same song sheet. No contrary or dissenting views allowed-and they should’ve had the decency to listen to people like Neil Armstrong, Capt. Gene Cernan, Gen. Tom Stafford, and mission control guys like Chris Kraft and Gene Kranz. But no….their mistake.

    Melberg: You’re so right. Also remember how shabbily they treated John Glenn when he had reservations about the Administration’s NASA plans? They politely showed him the door. If you’re not in the Chicago Machine-or willing to go along with it, which is where Mr. Obama cut his teeth, your ideas aren’t acceptable. I’d be a lot more comfortable having someone like Chris Kraft or Gene Cernan as NASA Administrator than the leadership currently in NASA now.

  • vulture4

    Rick Boozer: “How Some Senators Chose to Ruin U.S. Manned Spaceflight by Designing an Overly Expensive Rocket and Blamed it on NASA.”
    Originally this rocket was the Ares V, designed by Mike Griffin (AKAIK) with Powerpoint. The Senators just renamed it.

    .As far as the Webb goes, the original proposal was for a telescope that was a practical step forward, before it was made so gargantuan by Dan Golden. Even now, if the same senators that are pushing SLS instead pushed Webb they would likely get it, because although it is over budget we have at least a fair idea of what the final budget will be and it will produce some interesting science, not just temporary jobs. But the SLS supporters will not also support Webb.

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    “Why is it that some people think Kay Bailey Hutchison is trying to “save pork” while Jimmy Hoffa is trying to “protect workers”?”

    because the long and short of it, is that in both cases this is what is happening.

    I wont get into Hoffa’s comments because they are not space related. But the notion that companies can break unions simply by transferrring work to right to work states where the fat get fatter and the dumb are in charge is nonesense.

    KBH is saving pork. the jobs she wants to protect are meaningless in terms of the nation economy. They require federal dollars to exist and dont provide one thing as a function of being…that do anything for ordinary Americans. NASA tries to pull out spinoffs and everything; but we are going to see, if we are not already seeing that “NOT” Flying the shuttle does nothing to the economy (ie stop creating products etc) that simply turning off the federal technowelfare spigot does not RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    tom wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    ” If NASA gets every dollar they ask for what possible reason will they give for not starting now?”

    goofy trying to sort out when that has happened. RGO

  • Matt Wiser

    And red: check the Washington Post for 23 Nov 07: that spells out the difference between the then-candidates Hiliary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s been pointed out on previous threads, but it bears repeating. Clinton pro-HSF, Obama against. If a Democrat had to win back in ’08, I think spacewise, and on a lot of other issues, we’d be better off if Hiliary had won. And if McCain had won (don’t blame me, I voted for the tough old guy and the conservative chick), same way.

  • libs0n

    tom said:

    “If Lori had thought out her plan she would have proposed NASA keep Orion and build an inspace crewed spacecraft like Nautilus-X. Based @ ISS and used for missions to the moon and anyplace else within a few million miles. The 1st of its kind, a real exploration spacecraft. This would leave all launch vehicles (big and small) to the commercial world, give NASA engineers and contractors a worthy program and the US a world class capability. But that’s not what happened.”

    Except that is exactly what happened. The President’s FY2011 budget proposed to pursue foundational research into technology for a habitable interplanetary spacecraft, the purpose of which would be to send humans to Mars orbit, to be first used to visit an asteroid prior to that. That budget was later modified to include Orion even.

    Space state senators and their staff then colluded to fix tens of billions of dollars in contracts to shuttle contractors and their associated centers, and abused their power to word NASA related legislation to that end. Cheerleaded by people who would rather NASA play endlessly with rockets, and those who apparently can’t see the forest for the trees. And here we are.

  • Michael from Iowa

    @tom
    “Congress and the Senate are going to provide whatever moneies are needed to make SLS happen. Part of why NASA will not give the numbers out is to keep that from happening.”

    First – Contrary to what you suggest – NASA has issued a report detailing the cost of developing the SLS and initial flights. This estimate has already been criticized as lowballed and doesn’t even include the cost of any actual payloads or missions.

    Second – Said report, along with independent reviews that have confirmed it, are exactly why Congress is not going to provide ‘whatever money is needed to make SLS happen’. Best estimates for the cost of actually running Congress’ program are upwards of $60 billion over the next decade, that’s nearly four times the cap set in the 2010 NASA Authorization Bill. Given the inevitable cuts that NASA will suffer under the debt deal, it’s also several billion a year more than NASA can afford unless we’re going to shut down the ISS and most of the unmanned mission and tech programs being run out of NASA to free up the funding… a decision that would be even more idiotic and shortsighted than all this SLS/Constellation 2.0 business.

  • NASA Fan

    @ Rick Boozer.

    Read the post you point to.

    Indeed, the JWST Delay to 2015 LRD (notionally hoped for new date, post Mukulski investigation) was contingent upon $250 M extra in 2011 and 2012. Not surprisingly, that money did not materialize. The impact of that is more delays and a new price tag near $8B.

    What is important to note is that the original dysfunction that led to the present train wreck was the same as that which postponed the launch from 2015 to 2018, i.e. there was never enough reserves available to JWST management; because NASA HQ didn’t have it. Hence train wreck.

    I know some of the JWST crowd, and they were telling me over 5 years ago that there was a coming train wreck because HQ didn’t have the reserves available. These are smart people who know a thing or two about what it takes to deliver a project on time; but as usual at NASA, there is never enough money, so folks oversell. And the JWST management team that got wacked, wasn’t the team that did the oversell.

    So, nothing has changed at NASA. And changing out managers won’t solve this problem.

    JWST is too large and too complex and requiring too many new technologies for anyone to ever come up with an accurate cost estimate. It isn’t possible.

    The question is then, is it wise to take on a project you don’t know the eventual costs of.

    The same goes for SLS. It’s too complex an undertaking, never been done before (though the technology pieces are not really new, their specific application is fraught with peril). And you can bet the new $68B price tag includes plenty of reserves, having learned the lessons from JWST.

    But I will bet you a billion that the reserves won’t be there when needed for SLS.

    Just ask Mike Griffin if he had the reserves he needed (lets not get into the bankrupt architectural choices…..any architecture would have been underfunded and continually subject to yearly cuts by Congress as they solves some deficit problem or another)

    So is it worth doing? For JWST I say yes. Its expensive, however, as Hubble has shown, it will be worth every penny. For SLS? I say no; purely pork, a bridge to no where.

    I say no.

  • SpacePolicyOnline.com has the numbers that led NASA to conclude SLS was going to cost more than expected.

    They also have the charts online.

  • rpatituc

    Question to all of you who think that SLS will not be built. If SLS
    is not going to be built, why is ATK working on the 5 segmet solid
    rocket booster? Why is the core stage of the HLV being worked on?
    Why is the J2 engine being tested? Work has been going on on the
    HLV for the last 6 years. I have read articles in websites about this.
    The truth is that the SLS is being worked on, has been being worked on
    and will continue to be worked on until built. To say that it will not be
    built because it’s too expensive or too complicated is stupid because it
    is being built!
    Also, if HLV is not built, what will be done with MPCV?

  • pathfinder_01

    “Why would you need Orion for that when Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser etc, could take more people per flight to build and crew the Nautilus-X for far less development money and flight operations costs? Why not use a thermonuclear bomb to kill a mouse?”

    I am no fan of Orion. In fact I would prefer to evolve the commercial crew craft over Orion but it would depend on where Nautilus-X were located. If located in LEO then commercial crew could man it and you could use Orion as a crew return vehicle(I.e. launched unmanned).

    None of the commercail crew craft would have the heat shield or crew duration or delta V for return from a BEO mission( except Dragon might have the heat shield). That being said I would prefer a Dragon BEO model, Dream chaser XL or more an evolved CST100 over Orion. If you are returning from a mission you may need many days worth of return time(say 4+) Orion’ ability to support a crew for 21 days would be a plus here.

    If located at l1/l2 then the commercial crew craft would not have enough duration for the mission(without some evolution) and you would use Orion as a Crew Transfer Vehicle.

    If used as a CTV you could launch Orion unmanned on a Delta IV to the ISS , and launch a EDS on an Delta IV that could push Orion to l1/l2. It could be crewed via commercial crew because the commercial all carry 7 and Orion only needs 4(you could do it on an ISS crew rotation).

    Orion has some limited uses. SLS or any shuttle derived vehicle will be an expensive drain of money that is of no use to furthering the goal of space travel.

    Also Nautilus-X was sized for an HLV(although honestly you could do it without an HLV….)and given the fact the Orion can only hold 4 yet Nautilus-X was sized for 6. You could downsize to 4 and gain some savings.

    That being said all of this is politically difficult….Orion does not use near as many workers as the shuttle and any rocket built of those parts does. Congress cares not what SLS launches just that it employ people.

  • Paul

    “Anti-NASA” is a code phrase meaning “refusing to play the dishonest game with congresss that previous administrations have”. Of course the congressional porkmeisters can’t come out and say that the president is refusing to go along with the pretense that SLS can be done for a fraction of what it will actually cost, so they fume and spin.

    The president has the upper hand here. Congress cannot require the administration to be dishonest.

  • @vulture4
    @NASA Fan

    I would like to clear a misconception here. I know that the JW telescope was not a facade of a jobs program masquerading as a worthwhile space project the way SLS is. I was just using the article about JWT to make a point about SLS. There is no proposed alternative that could do what JWT does for less cost as there is with SLS. As an astrophysicist I would love to see the science it returned; however, given the across-the-board budget slashing that is going to occur because of the enacted debt ceiling law, I think it will suffer the same fate as SLS despite its greater worthiness. Unlike the SLS cultists, I am not going to tell myself that something I want is going to be allowed to continue simply because that is what I want to believe. The Superconducting Super Collider was also a worthy project that was cut due to cost overruns in much better fiscal times than these. The Europeans at CERN took that dropped ball and ran with it and because of that they are doing the cutting edge physics that we could have been doing.

  • @ pathfinder_01
    None of the commercail crew craft would have the heat shield or crew duration or delta V for return from a BEO mission( except Dragon might have the heat shield).
    Ah, but you are missing part of the advantage that a true spacecraft such as Nautilus-X would offer. It could leave from Earth orbit and arrive back in Earth orbit using the constantly thrusting low acceleration VASIMR drive. Thus, the Earth return vehicle used to go to and from it would not have to withstand interplanetary re-entry speeds.

  • BTW. I meant to say “true spaceship” rather than “true spacecraft” in my previous comment.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi NASA Fan –

    “Just ask Mike Griffin if he had the reserves he needed (lets not get into the bankrupt architectural choices…..any architecture would have been underfunded and continually subject to yearly cuts by Congress as they solves some deficit problem or another)”

    I’ll simply have to disagree with you on architectural choices, their costs and their support.

    When Griffin chose that architecture, he was repeatedly warned that he had no reserves, but he went with it anyway.

    Perhaps Bolden has enough clout with Nelson to explain the 5 seg problems to him.

  • Martijn Meijering

    SEP is not a good choice for departing from or returning to LEO as you would spend a lot of time in the van Allens. And I don’t think it would even work for interplanetary travel. Lagrange points are the natural home port of a deep space spacecraft. Gigantic EDSs departing from LEO are an HLV-centric concept that we need to let go off.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I meant I didn’t think LEO to escape and back with SEP would work for manned spacecraft, not that SEP would be useless for interplanetary applications!

  • @Boozer: “Ah, but you are missing part of the advantage that a true spacecraft such as Nautilus-X would offer. It could leave from Earth orbit and arrive back in Earth orbit using the constantly thrusting low acceleration VASIMR drive. Thus, the Earth return vehicle used to go to and from it would not have to withstand interplanetary re-entry speeds.”

    Better yet, take a high thrust impulse ride to libration and rendezvous your EP ship, sparing crew and radiation sensitive payloads the long spiral out. You get a natural linchpin for an orbital and libration point fuel and supply network for your trouble.

  • kayawanee

    Rick Boozer wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 9:25 am

    It could leave from Earth orbit and arrive back in Earth orbit using the constantly thrusting low acceleration VASIMR drive. Thus, the Earth return vehicle used to go to and from it would not have to withstand interplanetary re-entry speeds.

    And if the engines fail? I’m thinking that the risk averse NASA would require a return capsule, capable of returning at interpanetary speeds, to be a part of any “Spaceship”.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I’ll simply have to disagree with you on architectural choices, their costs and their support.

    Pretty much, because you know your position is untenable.

  • Just Plain Joe

    All of these comments are entertaining. Like Scotty said in Star Trek “I like this ship, it’s exciting.”. Seriously, all of these comments are just like what is happening in Congress. Back and forth…there is no general consensus. Politicians and their constituents are all over the board. Alas, what this calls for is a leader to ram it home and we don’t have one. Personally, at this point, I don’t care what gets rammed home…just do it.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    But as aircraft designer Jim Floyd has noted, “Anyone who imagines that high technology runs cheap doesn’t understand the subject.”

    Cheap has nothing to do with it. And in case you hadn’t noticed, high technology products are in high demand, so what does that tell you? The real measurement is value.

    If you reduce the cost to perform a task by 50%, regardless if it was $1 previously or $1B, then that’s a huge reduction. If you increase the capability of something from 3 to 7, while keeping the cost the same, that’s a huge increase.

    NASA is an organization built to do things that haven’t been done before. But their charter is not to lower the cost of doing things, so if we want to do dramatically more in space then NASA isn’t the right organization to do that.

    Until people understand that, we will continue to languish in LEO, with only fleeting trips beyond. And those few trips will be so expensive that America will continue to believe that “space is hard”, and limit funding accordingly.

    So we can either focus on doing those once-in-a-lifetime flags & footprint events, or we can focus on reducing the cost to do things in space so we can slowly expand out into space. We can’t do both – choose wisely.

  • common sense

    @ Rick Boozer wrote @ September 8th, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    “So I will tell them right now, “He’s just joking!””

    I was hoping for some more response. Well too bad.

    But note that if congress gave all the necessary money to NASA we’ll build an SLS. And if Lori had agreed upon Nautilus-X we would have the darnest space program on the planet. And possibly in the Solar system. Don’t know much about the other stars. And for all I know these planets may be in a deep recession and have to make cuts enforced by law. Not here mind you, just these other star systems. After all we don’t know for sure if gravitation really is applicable to our entire Universe. Some say there are earth-like planets where you can get to orbit by just f… err sneezing. I don’t know, you know, it’s hard work and all that sort of things. Some people go to EE and therefore know all there is to know about reentry physics, others get an MBA and manage programs for reentry vehicles. Note that others go to AE and think wings are good for lunar return vehicles. So all in all I hope we would build JWST despite the cost and look for those stars with different physics. Now remains the question whether we could see stars with different physics when our observatory relies on our best known physics. I don’t know. All those question in my poor brain. So I say cancel JWST, cancel SLS and just send us the checks, we would have a more productive life bathing in the South Pacific and promote the local economy. And some day just maybe some day the people of the South Pacific will build a great huge god defying pirogue with salt water propulsion systems and finally reach the stars. Unless of course a gigantic cometeor hits us. Then all bets are off.

  • NASA Fan

    @ E.P. Grondine,

    Had Griffin picked an architecture that was cheaper, and allowed for the proper reserve level (which I don;t believe is possible as reserves are a % of total costs, and there is no way to know the cost of any architecture of that magnitude – but I digress) had he had enuf reserves, when the eventual budget cut from Congress came a calling, he’d be behind schedule and over budget.

    I don’t know, but I bet he moved forward w/o the proper reserves because he wanted hardware done and built and flown before Bush 2 exited office, thus betting that if h/w had flown, Cx would less likely to be cancelled. He lost that bet.

    As an example of the rush of Griffin to get ‘something flown’, the LRO mission, managed out of Exploration, had all the money they asked for when they asked for it. They launched a few months later than original planned 3/4 years earlier. That goes to show you when the resources you say you need are there, and you’re not trying to do something way outside your experience base, and you have the right team and architecture, you can succeed. LRO was a stunning success.

    I can’t recall too many projects that always got what they wanted wrt funding. LRO got what they wanted because Griffin wanted to demonstrate ‘action’ on ‘back to the moon to stay’

  • amightywind

    Perhaps Bolden has enough clout with Nelson to explain the 5 seg problems to him.

    Has any administrator in history had less clout than Bolden? The 5 segment SRM was completed today. Like the first it was a spectacular success. The 5 segment motor is an important piece of the SLS architecture. There is no arguing they look cool going up.

  • Michael from Iowa

    @rpatituc
    “Question to all of you who think that SLS will not be built…”

    No one questions whether the SLS CAN be built, we question whether or not it SHOULD be.

    The estimated cost already ballooning into the tens of billions of dollars (which doesn’t even cover the cost of developing any actual payloads to justify the rocket’s existence). NASA will almost certainly suffer from deep budget cuts as part of the debt deal. We’d have to pull out of the ISS and defund half the programs running out of NASA to pay for the SLS. 10-15 years from now we’ll have an HLV we can’t afford to build a payload for or even launch.

  • Coastal Ron

    rpatituc wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 7:54 am

    – “If SLS is not going to be built, why is ATK working on the 5 segmet solid
    rocket booster?

    – “Why is the core stage of the HLV being worked on?

    – “Why is the J2 engine being tested?

    The answer to all of these questions is the same – because NASA is paying them to do it. But that doesn’t mean there is enough money to build the SLS.

    To say that it will not be built because it’s too expensive or too complicated is stupid because it is being built!

    It will only get built if NASA gets the money from Congress to build it. Right now the SLS estimates far exceed the budgeted amount from Congress, so even if they started the program (which they haven’t), there is no guarantee that it would received sufficient funds to finish it.

    Why would you start building something if you already know you’ll go vastly over budget? It needs to be re-approved by Congress, and have it’s budget increased – or cancel it (my vote).

    Also, if HLV is not built, what will be done with MPCV?

    The MPCV can launch unmanned on a Delta IV Heavy, and possibly manned on a Falcon Heavy. We don’t lack for options for getting it into space, or pushing it somewhere in space. The SLS is not needed for the MPCV to be used.

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 7:09 am

    SpacePolicyOnline.com has the numbers that led NASA to conclude SLS was going to cost more than expected.

    Something else that caught my eye was the amount of money being spent on the MPCV – WOW! $14.6B thru 2021 under option #3, which is the Senate Authorization Act level of spending. Are they gold-plating every one of them?

  • And if the engines fail?

    Ad Astra’s concept calls for four reactors and engine assemblies.

  • common sense

    @ kayawanee wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 11:05 am

    “And if the engines fail? I’m thinking that the risk averse NASA would require a return capsule, capable of returning at interpanetary speeds, to be a part of any “Spaceship”.”

    In what way is that a problem? Cruise ships have life boats don’t they? If you design a Nautilus-X you might as well put a life pod to it. We have life pods on ISS and nobody is complaining… In this particular case it is not about being “risk averse” just about being safe. Note that if you are too far from your destination, life pod or not won’t make much of a difference. But you may not have the luxury to send a rendez-vous mission in case of a serious emergency.

    Anyway those things need to be traded and not arm-waved…

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    If I am not mistaken NASA was asked to use the Constellation contract to the extent they support SLS or the interim or whatever they call this obscene waste. Remember that NASA is under a CR as well. Not sure how you transfer money from a program to another under a CR. And there was all the close-out money.

    Why are you surprised for MPCV? http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/3475

  • John Malkin

    amightywind wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    “The 5 segment SRM was completed today. Like the first it was a spectacular success. “

    How much avionics data was obtained from the test? So it doesn’t need integration tests? What is the architecture of the rocket it’s boosting?

    amightywind wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    “The 5 segment motor is an important piece of the SLS architecture. There is no arguing they look cool going up.”

    It won’t see space for at least another 6 years if ever. It has another to boast if ever.

  • Coastal Ron

    Just Plain Joe wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Back and forth…there is no general consensus.

    And why is that? What will change Mars First supporters into Moon First supporters? Or Asteroid First supporters into Mars First?

    Alas, what this calls for is a leader to ram it home and we don’t have one.

    In these hyper-polarized political days, Obama could say that he’s changed his mind and that we’re going back to the Moon, and Republicans will criticize the plan as fiscal lunacy. Mars First supporters will hate it because it’s not Mars, and then everyone else will dislike it because they’ll think it’s a waste of NASA’s resources to drop anchor on the Moon instead of pushing out further and further into space.

    Do you think Bachmann or Perry can say words that will sway the space community any better? That the Zubrin & Spudis camps will suddenly see the light of day in choosing an asteroid over Mars or returning to the Moon? Maybe the next President will say, nah, we’re not going anywhere – it costs too much, and I want to focus on deficit reduction. How will that go over?

    Short of a recognized need to do something in space (asteroid on collision course, alien invasion, etc.), finding consensus is like trying to herd cats. Instead of fighting that, you should be looking for ways to succeed without a political consensus. For me that’s commerce, which is why I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space. Lower the cost, and we do more. Ignore costs, like the Senate is with the SLS, and we’re stuck here squabbling on planet Earth.

    Personally, at this point, I don’t care what gets rammed home…just do it.

    Glad to hear that. The choice has been made – the next official NASA destination is an asteroid. I’m sure we can count on your wholehearted support… ;-)

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi AW –

    “The 5 segment SRM was completed today. Like the first it was a spectacular success. The 5 segment motor is an important piece of the SLS architecture.”

    No s***, AW – and therein lies the problem – RGO, MT, would you guys explain again to AW why large solids are crummy for launching manned and “sensitive” payloads one more time?

    AW, I will have to wait for the test results to see if commercial sats can withstand the 5 seg acceleration and vibration loads.

  • red

    “check the Washington Post for 23 Nov 07: that spells out the difference between the then-candidates Hiliary Clinton and Barack Obama.”

    That article shows that Clinton wanted to increase aeronautics and Earth science and to restore ambitious scientific research. She was “more focused on nearer-term goals I think are achievable” than astronaut trips to Mars. Maybe that means things that we can actually afford like space technology development and demonstrations, using the ISS, commercial crew, robotic precursors, etc? Clinton wanted “expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system, and enhanced space science activities”.

    Lori Garver was a major space policy advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign, so it’s not surprising that Clinton’s campaign space policy is similar to Obama’s.

  • @kayawanee
    “And if the engines fail? I’m thinking that the risk averse NASA would require a return capsule, capable of returning at interpanetary speeds, to be a part of any “Spaceship”.

    If we are going to do real exploration of the solar system, the laws of physics themselves will dictate that we must take extreme risks. For instance, due to the orbital mechanics of a Mars trip, even an escape in a capsule capable of atmospheric reentry at interplanetary speeds from a ship in the outward bound part of the journey would keep taking the crew outward away from Earth from 1 to about 2 years depending on how far along the ship was when the escape occurred. Keep in mind that almost all an interplanetary trip would be done at distances so far away from Earth that no capsule would have enough life support essentials to get the crew back to Earth alive. The only exception would be after the ship has completed most of its journey and is very close to Earth on the return leg (a very short time). So If a spaceship is made to come back to Earth orbit, there is no need for Orion as an escape pod. Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser or whatever will do.

    NO frontier has ever been conquered without taking such risks and with that kind of wussy attitude it will be useless for us to build ANYKIND of interplanetary vehicle. Hell, this country would have never been built if the people in the old country who had the cajones to leave had had such a pansy attitude.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi NASA Fan –

    Griffin tried to lock his launchers and architecture from the start, which is why we’re in this mess today.

  • @ablastofhotair
    “The 5 segment motor is an important piece of the SLS architecture. There is no arguing they look cool going up.”

    Oh, yes looking cool as its going up is a major feature that makes all that extra overbudget money worth it! ;)

  • common sense

    @ kayawanee wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 11:05 am

    BTW Apollo-13 rings a bell? Had they been confined to their CM… I am sure there are multiple ways to address the problem. Maybe you don’t want to slow down Nautilus in the upper atmosphere (saving TPS hence mass) and use a life pod in the same way we go back and forth to ISS.

    First though we need some illuminati to push fore this kind of idea.

  • red

    “in case you haven’t heard, the FY 11 budget you quote was disposed of by Congress.”

    The point I was addressing wasn’t whether or not the FY11 budget was implemented into law, it was whether the Administration is “anti-NASA and anti-HSF”. The FY11 budget proposal clearly shows that they aren’t anti-NASA or anti-HSF.

    “One of the reasons it was disposed of was NO MISSIONS other than ISS.”

    There were plenty of missions other than ISS in the FY11 budget proposal. There were several flagship exploration technology demonstration missions. Only the inflatable habitat and closed-loop life support demonstration mission was at the ISS. The others included a new space tug, an advanced propulsion demonstration mission (possibly to Mars), a fuel depot demonstration mission (possibly to GEO), and an aerocapture demonstration mission (possibly to Mars). A number of robotic precursor missions were proposed to the Moon, NEOs, and Mars and its moons. Smallsat technology demonstration missions were proposed. General space technology demonstration missions were proposed (the recent announcement of 3 mission selections in that category is a small example of that).

    Of course there would also be missions to the ISS, with more ISS funding, more Shuttle lifespan, the inflatable demo, general space technology R&D funding that could in part happen on ISS, and commercial crew – lots of them, and lots more use of the ISS.

    If you specifically mean missions by astronauts to places other than the ISS, there were none in the FY11-15 horizon of the FY11 budget proposal. Of course it would have taken Constellation until 2035 or so to do such missions, so I think FY11 would have easily beaten that. The same is true of SLS/MPCV.

  • @kayawanee
    Mistype in my reply to you.
    This sentence:
    “For instance, due to the orbital mechanics of a Mars trip, even an escape in a capsule capable of atmospheric reentry at interplanetary speeds from a ship in the outward bound part of the journey would keep taking the crew outward away from Earth from 1 to about 2 years depending on how far along the ship was when the escape occurred.”
    Should read:
    “For instance, due to the orbital mechanics of a Mars trip, even an escape in a capsule capable of atmospheric reentry at interplanetary speeds from a ship in the outward bound part of the journey would keep taking the crew outward away from Earth for up to 1 year with the entire return trip taking up to about 2 years depending on how far along the ship was when the escape occurred.”

  • @Just Plain Joe
    , all of these comments are just like what is happening in Congress. Back and forth…there is no general consensus.
    No, there is a logical fallacy in your statement. The difference is that the Congressional members who gave us SLS and the people here who argue for SLS are basing their position on what they want to happen whether it fits external realities or not. We, on the other hand, are basing our position on what we can practically expect to do with the funds we will have available.

    What you are saying is the equivalent to someone who has not looked very deeply into evolution vs creationism. Such a person can say “Well they ‘re still discussing it from opposite viewpoints so nobody knows whose right.” When in reality the preponderance of the discovered evidence has showed the former was correct a long time ago. You need to realize that there will always be someone who will refuse to accept what is right in front of their noses, and the fact that they continue denying the facts (even when evidence indicates they are wrong) does not make the other side less right. Heck, there are still people who think the world is flat.

  • Re-reading the 2010 authorization, section 304 in particular and the surrounding text, I do not see any legal requirement for NASA to select RAC-1. Presumably, this is why they even bothered with RAC-2 and -3 (did -3 even finish?). Question. Is there any explicit statement from NASA actually selected RAC-1 SD HLV, or is the evaluation ongoing?

  • E.P. Grondine

    No Surprise:

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — NASA and Alliant Techsystems (ATK) managers
    will announce an agreement that could accelerate the availability of
    U.S. commercial crew transportation capabilities at 3 p.m. EDT on
    Tuesday, Sept. 13. The announcement will occur at the Press Site
    auditorium at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

    The event will not be carried live on NASA Television. NASA TV’s Video
    File segment will air highlights.

    The announcement participants are:
    — Ed Mango, Commercial Crew Program manager, NASA
    — Kent Rominger, vice president, Strategy and Business Development,
    ATK Aerospace
    — John Schumacher, vice president, Space Programs, EADS North America

    Anybody else here feel like vomiting?
    Have a really great weekend…

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Why are you surprised for MPCV?

    I knew it would take $8-9B, but $14.6B just makes me want to barf. What value are we getting out it?

    It’s not the long term solution to space exploration, since it doesn’t have radiation hardening or shelter capability, and it’s too small to keep a small crew physically fit for long durations.

    Essentially we’re paying $14.6B for a glorified lifeboat. People keep wanting to build Cadillacs, when all we need are Chevy’s…

  • kayawanee

    Rick Boozer wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    NO frontier has ever been conquered without taking such risks and with that kind of wussy attitude it will be useless for us to build ANYKIND of interplanetary vehicle. Hell, this country would have never been built if the people in the old country who had the cajones to leave had had such a pansy attitude.

    I agree with you 100%. My argument wasn’t that we shouldn’t take the risk, it’s that I don’t believe NASA, in its current risk averse form, will take such a risk. Institutions are loath to change, and this would be a big change for them.

    The bigger problem however, is Congress. How do you get THAT institution to change?

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    LM is known for crazy underbidding. But assume their cost was real back then. Back in 2006 the cost was $8-9B if all went well and there would be no delay etc. The CEV was to fly in 2012 max. So we are in 2011 so where is the CEV/Orion/MPCV? Where? On what rocket will it fly? You need to realize (I am sure you do but not necessarily all the consequences) that changing LV means you need to almost run a re-design. Need to make sure the vehicle can safely abort on the EELV trajectory, that all loads are within the constraint of what was “designed” for Ares-I. Is there a redesign for the LAS? Originally the CEV included the crew module, service module and LAS. So when they quote whatever for MPCV what does it really, REALLY, include? Are they planning for sure one specific LV? Or one for uncrewed and then another one for crewed mission? I mean cost can pile much faster that I can type. The beauty of cost-plus…

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    I forgot all the delays make cost creep too as you know…

    Long live cost plus! Maybe someday I too will get a sole source contract cost plus. Maybe.

  • William Mellberg

    Just Plain Joe wrote:

    “Seriously, all of these comments are just like what is happening in Congress. Back and forth … there is no general consensus. Politicians and their constituents are all over the board. Alas, what this calls for is a leader to ram it home and we don’t have one.”

    When I mentioned “will” earlier, I probably should have mentioned leadership, too. A strong leader can help generate the “will” to do many things (both good and bad, I might add). But there could be a limit to how long political “will” can last. Kennedy called for landing a man on the Moon within a decade. (Had he lived and won a second term, Apollo 8 would have been flown just as he was leaving office.) A longer term commitment to a bolder space adventure might be impossible politically. The “will” simply won’t be there to survive multiple changes of leadership. Which is why I don’t take President Obama’s call for an asteroid mission in 2025 all that seriously. We could have three or more new presidents between now and then. What are the chances they would all stick to the Obama plan? He hasn’t really done much to promote the asteroid plan himself (although I’ll grant you that he’s had a lot of other things on his plate since taking office).

    Achieving long-term political consensus in a democracy is hard. Creating a long-term space plan might be impossible.

  • pathfinder_01

    Rick Boozer

    “Ah, but you are missing part of the advantage that a true spacecraft such as Nautilus-X would offer. It could leave from Earth orbit and arrive back in Earth orbit using the constantly thrusting low acceleration VASIMR drive. Thus, the Earth return vehicle used to go to and from it would not have to withstand interplanetary re-entry speeds.”

    An electrically propelled craft could take weeks, months, or years to return back to earth orbit and take weeks or months to get to LEO. A spacecraft like Orion would allow you to leave the craft (once close enough to earth) and let it come in on autopilot. In addition a slow trip through the Van Allen Belts with a crew is a bad idea. Even with VASIMR one of the ad Astra’s plans when they get to mars would be to abandon the ship and let it come into mars orbit on autopilot while the crew lands on the surface.

    If you use VASIMR you would put the craft into a high earth orbit(or L1/L2). It could leave from LEO but it would leave unmanned due to the Van Allen Belts. You would then crew it in high earth orbit which would take a craft with more duration than the current commercial crew craft. If your travel to L1/L2 you need a craft with at least 4 days endurance to get to L1/L2 and 4 days back(if you have a problem and can’t dock) for a total of 8 days at least. It will also take more delta V than it takes to dock with the ISS(I.e. the craft is going to have to slow itself into an halo orbit) and you will need a better heat sheild than from LEO( return from l1/l2 is like return from the moon).

    Commercial crew craft don’t need to support a crew for 8 days. You could get to the ISS within same day (but looks like NASA is going to require the commercial crew craft to have at least 3 days worth of duration to allow multiple docking attempts and allow the spacecraft to support the crew for a few hours on the ground). Commercial crew craft won’t generate as much heat on return from LEO.

    Basically direct reentry saves time and mass. I.e. the crew does not need to be present for the slow spiral to earth capture and reducing the mass of the ship should speed up the time it takes to be captured.

    I agree with Costal Ron about the cost of Orion though. It is very expensive and disposable.

  • Robert G. Oler

    None of this matters the economy is going to be in near depression status thanks to the mishandling by both parties but most of all the GOP RGO

  • pathfinder_01

    That being said the LEO to L1/L2 craft does not have to be Orion. Dragon could be upgraded and theoreticaly has a heat sheild capable of the trip. It just needs more Delta V in the service module and perhaps more radation shielding and hardening. I am not sure how far it could go but I really like the idea behind Dream chaser XL http://www.iloa.org/spdv_study4.html. Also the CST100 while currently built for LEO work could probably be upgraded.

    IMHO what would really be nice is if NASA were working on long term cyrogenic storage for service modules. It would make for a lighter Orion/Dragon/Dreamchaser/ect. For a given delta V worth of propellant.

  • Martijn Meijering

    A universal SM based on the MPCV SM and the MPCV avionics could allow commercial capsules to serve in the LEO -> L1/L2 and L1/L2 -> Earth roles. No need to develop an additional CM that’s too large for commercial use as well as unavailable for commercial use.

  • tom

    Orion is the only thing under development that can give you 21 days to get home (and a heat shield, radiation protection, deep space propulsion, .etc) to handle the environment (just in case you have to abandon ship).

    What days!

    Liberty gets to fly
    Orion will fly in 2013
    Wait.. Orion on Liberty… could it be,,,, Ares I with a French twist. :)

  • @pathfinder_01
    “An electrically propelled craft could take weeks, months, or years to return back to earth orbit and take weeks or months to get to LEO.”
    Yes, with a traditional ion drive, that would be so. But with VASIMR, it would take as little as 39 days to get to Mars from Earth orbit and 39 days back.
    Yes VASIMR gives much less acceleration than traditional chemical rockets, but much more than traditional ion drives.

    “In addition a slow trip through the Van Allen Belts with a crew is a bad idea. “
    Goodness, as an astrophysicist, I would never have realized that! :)

    Nautilus-X, is designed with a radiation refuge surrounded by enough mass to block even the enormous radiation onslaught of a coronal mass ejection, if you want to take it through the van Allens. But I see no need to do that. The largest extent of the outer van Allen belt is 60,000 km about 1/4 the distance to the moon. Just let them descend in the capsules from an orbit above the van Allens. Or even from L1 you still wouldn’t have interplanetary re-entry speeds.

    Now I am leaving for my mountain retreat for the weekend where there is no internet access. So no comments from me until late Sunday or Monday

  • Dennis

    I see ATK just tested their 5 seg. solid rocket booster. Must be they are planning to use it!

  • Coastal Ron

    pathfinder_01 wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Basically direct reentry saves time and mass. I.e. the crew does not need to be present for the slow spiral to earth capture and reducing the mass of the ship should speed up the time it takes to be captured.

    Once we get out there I’m sure we’ll be using modes of transportation that are not optimized for what they do, either by function or by cost. I think the key will be in building simple vehicles, not complex ones.

    For transporting crew to space and within the Earth-Moon system, I see the following:

    Earth-LEO-Earth = The current commercial crew vehicles will do this.

    LEO-EML-LEO = We need a reusable vehicle that can make this shuttle run fast enough to keep people alive, and then aerobrake to transfer passengers in LEO and refuel for outbound trips.

    EML-Moon-EML = This could end up being two vehicles, with one being a reusable lander, and the other a robotic tug to lower the lander as far down as possible to reduce the landers fuel needs. The tug could then climb back up using SEP to reduce fuel needs.

    Each of these can be operated independently of the other transportation routes, so upgrades cost less, and each could be operated by different companies, which encourages competition.

    The MPCV doesn’t really help for any of these transportation routes, and that’s why I see it as a glorified lifeboat more than anything else. Really only good for returning from the Moon, and then only once. An evolutionary dead-end.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Must be they are planning to use it!

    ATK was paid to test it, regardless if it has a use.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Orion is the only thing under development…

    Some people have learning disabilities that stop them from acquiring new knowledge – try not to be one. The MPCV is a de-rated version of Orion, but clearly not as capable as Orion.

    that can give you 21 days to get home

    Only if you’re starting out in space on another vehicle. The Orion could only keep a crew alive for 21.1 days max, so after you subtract the time it takes to get out to lunar orbit and actually do something with the one-time use MPCV, that doesn’t give you too much time to get home. Which is OK, since spending 21 days with three other people in a volume the size of my closet won’t be fun.

    Liberty gets to fly

    More likely an unfunded SAA, just like ULA did for Atlas V. No one wants to fly on a Liberty – and just to clarify, when I say no one, that means no human wants to ride that bone shaker…

    I see that it costs $75M and takes one year to make one SRM… what advantage does the Liberty have over it’s competition?

    Orion will fly in 2013

    As long as the SLS is still the PoR I doubt this will happen, since the SLS will require as many $Billions as it can get. I know LM says they have reserved a Delta IV Heavy, but Congress needs to approve the funding for it. 50% chance at best that it will happen, but with the de rigueur schedule slips that LM loves to add, I wouldn’t plan a vacation around it.

  • Martijn Meijering

    LEO-EML-LEO

    I think it’s best to do this as LEO-EML and EML-Earth. Or at least to start there.

  • Vladislaw

    William Mellberg wrote:

    “Achieving long-term political consensus in a democracy is hard. Creating a long-term space plan might be impossible.”

    This is exactly the reason so many people want to get more commercial options in the space sector. Take it out of the hands of a few politicans and their special interests. They are not about what is best for the Nation, what is best for the Nation’s space plans, it is about jobs and votes in their district and campaign contibutions from the usual suspects.

    The sooner we have a flourishing space sector with multiple suppliers selling access the sooner we will start seeing really diverse options space.

    A recent article on the Space Review talked about the why of space. I have long thought the why is unimportant. If we focus on a single why it precludes all the others. Why this person or that person wants to goto space, why this business or that business wants to go into space, or why this government agency or that government wants to do things in space is all unimportant.

    What IS the most important is the creation of the commercial transportations systems that allows as many users as possible to go out and work on all the different whys of want they want to do in space.

    Some people want Lunar exploration, well NASA can buy a ticket, some individuals want to take a private vacation in LEO, they can buy a ticket, a business wants to test some new product in space, let them buy a ticket.

    If the Nation first and foremost commits to the transportation systems the 1001 whys to do something in space can be pursued and everyone’s personal interests can be satisfied.

    Take this out of the hands of politicians and their constantly changing the goal posts every 2 and 4 years.

  • tom

    Now that’s funny.
    Think again about Orion. Also many descoped systems get to come back with a better rocket! Orion can get you home from Lunar orbit in about 3.5 days! Stay tuned for the great news Tuesday on Liberty. The Lox Damper takes care of the vibration fro liberty. Just like it would on Ares I.
    The Orion spacecraft that started construction today should be in space within the next 19-24 months.

    Not too bad!

  • amightywind

    How much avionics data was obtained from the test? So it doesn’t need integration tests? What is the architecture of the rocket it’s boosting?

    How much is needed for a component that has flow 270 times? Your criticism is just sour grapes.

  • Matt Wiser

    red: it’s been discussed on earlier threads, but a major reason that FY 11 Budget request was disposed of by Congress is that the Administration didn’t “make the sale.” They underestimated the pushback that their proposal received, both from Congress and from NASA vets like Captains Gene Cernan and Jim Lovell, Gen. Tom Stafford, Neil Armstrong, Gene Kranz, Chris Kraft and the like, the anger that developed in those communities that are “space cities” (Houston, Huntsville, Titusville/Coccoa Beach, etc.), and so on. And in case you haven’t noticed, Congress is NOT a rubber stamp. The Congress that wrote the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was a Democratically controlled one-and the Act passed during a lame-duck session with bipartisan support. And the opposition to the original FY 11 budget request was bipartisan. Charlie Bolden himself admitted a week or so after the disaster of a rollout that he ignored his PAOs, “thought I knew better” and went ahead despite their warnings. Big mistake. NASA’s own leadership admitted that they didn’t “sell” their proposals to Congress-and they’ve paid for that. They’re still in recovery mode.

    Want an example? Bolden was testifying at a House hearing prior to that so-called “space summit” at the Cape. He was asked flat out if he was concerned that another country like China was going to beat us back to the moon. His response was that he didn’t care. The congressman who asked the question replied “It does to me.” Not having answers about plans for human missions beyond 2015, destinations, tentative exploration strategy and portfolios, etc. rubbed Congress the wrong way. Even that supplemental FY 11 presented after that “space summit” didn’t get very far-and even Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) who wanted that “summit” wasn’t very happy-and was very critical of Bolden and Dr. Holdren (POTUS’ science advisor) at their hearing. Result: Congress threw out what the Administration wanted and wrote their own Authorization bill-which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. There’s a limit, people, between what you may want the Administration to do and what Congress will allow the Administration to do. “The Administration proposes, but Congress disposes” is an old adage in D.C.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    They underestimated the pushback that their proposal received

    Matt, Matt, Matt. As Eugene Cernan would tell you, you don’t know what you don’t know. In simple terms, you can’t put any stock in what politicians say – you have to look at what they actually do.

    The Administration proposed:

    – Cancel Constellation
    – Keep the Orion as the MPCV
    – Extend the ISS
    – Fund Commercial Crew

    And Congress approved that, despite what you think they said. Now Congress also added the SLS, but the Administration thru a party to celebrate their BIG WIN!! Didn’t you get the invite? ;-)

    So get off the Danny Downer routine, and move on. Oh, and NASA’s next official destination is an asteroid, not the Moon.

    Wake up to the new reality.

  • Frank Glover

    “Question to all of you who think that SLS will not be built. If SLS
    is not going to be built, why is ATK working on the 5 segmet solid
    rocket booster? ”

    The hope that it’ll still see some sort of use in Liberty or other Son of Ares-I. The 5 segment never was only about Ares-V or SLS. You are implying that it is.

    “Also, if HLV is not built, what will be done with MPCV?”

    Um, a launcher using a 5-segment solid is not the only way to put an Orion in orbit. (again, you imply that it is) Indeed, SLS is payload overkill for going only to LEO, even with Orion.

  • Asking again. Has requirements analysis wrapped up and has SD HLV been officially selected? If so, how did MSFC calculate RAC-1 best met legal and in-house requirements?

  • Major Tom

    “Orion is the only thing under development that can give you 21 days to get home (and a heat shield, radiation protection, deep space propulsion, .etc) to handle the environment (just in case you have to abandon ship).”

    This is a patently false statement. A Bigelow hab (under development) combined with any other capsule under development would give you more than 21 days to get home.

    And the reference to “deep space propulsion” is nonsensical. The transit stages are separate from the capsules in any case.

    On radiation protection, Orion dropped that years ago.

    On the heat shield, Dragon’s PICA-X withstands much higher temperatures than Orion’s AVCO.

    “Orion can get you home from Lunar orbit in about 3.5 days!”

    This is another nonsensical statement. The transit time isn’t determined by the capsule.

    “Stay tuned for the great news Tuesday on Liberty.”

    It’s just going to be another unfunded Space Act Agreement, which the COTS and CCDev programs have had with other companies. It allows NASA to share information with ATK on their requirements but little else.

    Although ATK management can pursue whatever questionable concepts they can get their board to approve, to be brutally honest, Liberty as configured is a lost cause. The EAS Astrium upper stage employs a lower stage LOX/hydrogen engine. NASA/Constellation/Griffin/Horowitz found out the hard way that doesn’t work when they tried it on the original four-segment/SSME Ares I design.

    “The Lox Damper takes care of the vibration fro liberty. Just like it would on Ares I.”

    First, we have no idea how ATK plans to deal with first-stage thrust oscillation on Liberty. Second, even if we did know that ATK was planning to revisit the LOX dampener and EADS Astrium agreed to add such a device to their upper stage, it was just a concept for Ares I. It was never fully designed, developed, ground tested, or flight tested.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “The Orion spacecraft that started construction today should be in space within the next 19-24 months.”

    On what? SLS doesn’t fly any earlier than 2017, no matter how much funding you throw at it.

    http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1845:the-nasa-numbers-behind-that-wsj-article&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

    Don’t make stuff up.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Alert the press. We agree. What’s more, the projects of scale, the fiscal projections and planning that goes with them appear increasingly disconnected from the very down-to-earth realities of the world they’re proposed to be funded and flown from. Ivory tower stuff. These fellas in lab coats may soon find folks in white coats, green eye shades and butterfly nets at their doors to talk about Project Bellevue.

  • Major Tom

    “The 5 segment motor is an important piece of the SLS architecture.”

    Yes, that must be why Shelby, Boxer, Feinstein, and Bolden want to replace it with a liquid booster.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “How much is needed for a component that has flow 270 times?”

    The five-segment SRB has never flown.

    Don’t make stuff up.

  • Major Tom

    “Question to all of you who think that SLS will not be built. If SLS
    is not going to be built, why is ATK working on the 5 segmet solid
    rocket booster?”

    Partly because they have the leftovers from Constellation and partly because funding is provided in NASA’s FY11 budget. Doesn’t mean that all the necessary SLS design, development and testing is going to be carried out in full over the next decade.

    Lots of work was performed on X-33, X-34, SLI, CEV, and Ares I. But none of those vehicles were built in their operational configurations and flown.

    One doesn’t logically flow from the other.

    “Why is the core stage of the HLV being worked on?”

    Evidence? Reference? Links?

    “Why is the J2 engine being tested?”

    That’s a good question since the SLS employs a Delta upper stage.

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

    “Work has been going on on the HLV for the last 6 years.”

    No, SLS was only approved in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and wasn’t funded until mid-2011. The project is only months old.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “Also, if HLV is not built, what will be done with MPCV?”

    It could fly on a Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy, but there are no plans to do so.

    Honestly, Orion was projected to be so brutally expensive to operate, and MPCV will be even more so that it would be better to terminate the project in favor of more affordable capsules.

    In fact, SLS and MPCV are so expensive that even in the most optimistic funding scenarios, they only leave $2.1-4.5B in NASA’s budget through 2025 for “in-space elements”.

    http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1845:the-nasa-numbers-behind-that-wsj-article&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

    In other words, even if NASA somehow magically got budget increase beyond what Congress approved in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act — all the way through 2025 — the agency would spend $62.5 billion on just getting to orbit with SLS and MPCV, leaving only $2.1B to $4.5B for any actual exploration hardware (transit stages, landers, etc.) and missions.

    That’s like spending 94% of your salary on your commute to work each day and only having 3-6% of your salary to spend on everything else you need in life.

    And that’s nuts.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    “Want an example? Bolden was testifying at a House hearing prior to that so-called “space summit” at the Cape. He was asked flat out if he was concerned that another country like China was going to beat us back to the moon. His response was that he didn’t care. The congressman who asked the question replied “It does to me.” ”

    there are at least three major problems with your analysis (and this happens all the time with space groupies like you)

    First; the Congressman cares but only because of the space “pork” in his district. No one else in the US cares.

    Second; the Chinese are not in a position to go to the moon and really are showing no inclination to do that at all….doesnt it “bother” you some that their first “docking” with their “space module” is going to be uncrewed?

    Third, it ignores national politics and trends. We are headed for a complete collapse of the US economy unparalled since the Depression. That is the “reality” that MOST Americans feel right now…and that overrides anything or anyone other then space groupies caring about humanity rushing out into space or to any celestial body.

    In the end why human space exploration is dying is that it has priced itself out of the market…and outside of the space groupies and technowelfare crowd…it has no support.

    Bolden is winning and will win. You and the space groupies are going to be like most of the shuttle workforce is now…out of luck RGO

  • Vladislaw

    “The congressman who asked the question replied “It does to me.””

    I bet it does matter to your campaign coffers. Gotta build something BIG to keep all those jobs in my district. Doesn’t matter if it costs 5-10 times as much.

  • Vladislaw

    tom wrote:

    “Now that’s funny.

    Think again about Orion. Also many descoped systems get to come back with a better rocket! Orion can get you home from Lunar orbit in about 3.5 days! Stay tuned for the great news Tuesday on Liberty.”

    75 mil for the disposable SRB, 90 mil for the Arienne, 1 billion for the disposable MPCV, 1.165 billion to get four people to LEO, Alright! Now THAT’S a bargin, let’s order 50 of them.

  • tom

    One other bit of news getting talked about and most likely 98% rumor is that Mr. Charlie will resign early next year and Lori will receive a recess appointment to be Admin for the rest of Obama’s 1st term. She is the one with access to Obama, Not Charlie.

  • DCSCA

    @Matt Wiser wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    Bolden was testifying at a House hearing prior to that so-called “space summit” at the Cape. He was asked flat out if he was concerned that another country like China was going to beat us back to the moon. His response was that he didn’t care.”

    That’s because Charlie’s ‘operating outside the area of his competence…’ as Gregory Peck said as Head of Manned Space Charles Raymond Keith in “Marooned.” Bolden is the Peter Principle at work. The quicker he and Garver are jettisoned from NASA, the better. Now that Charlie’s 65 and his pensions kick in fully funded, it’s time he punch out and go fishin’.

  • usa

    The Congress is only interested to keep the jobs in space industry, they don’t care about long term plans and results. I think it’s time to admit, America has lost the supremacy in human spaceflight.

  • Dennis

    If America keeps course, after Obama, just perhaps we can gain some of that on top in space activities back. Things come full circle sometimes, and maybe Ares may still launch Orion. It lookslike a Delta will in 2013! The next administration may indeed have a more forceful approach to space policy.

  • Coastal Ron

    usa wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 5:50 am

    I think it’s time to admit, America has lost the supremacy in human spaceflight.

    Just because we’re not flying the Shuttle? I think you’re missing the forest for the trees…

  • usa wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 5:50 am

    The Congress is only interested to keep the jobs in space industry, they don’t care about long term plans and results. I think it’s time to admit, America has lost the supremacy in human spaceflight.

    I would have to respectfully disagree with you. There are many members, both republicans and democrats, who care about space. However, the information they have is what I believe to be somewhat suspect.

    You are correct to say that congress cares about jobs. It is in every discussion. Members want to ensure we keep as many people as we can. I try to change the verbiage and say need instead.

    The truth of the matter is that only people who believe in SLS and the SD-HLV option claim that America is killing HSF. I would humbly suggest we are transforming from a government lead model to access LEO to a private sector and free market model to access LEO.

    Change is difficult.

    You have entire sections of NASA that realize they may be in trouble. They need to adapt and transform and not hold on to a wonderful and treasured past. If they can do that, and realize that American HSF doesn’t revolve around a burnt orange 8.4 meter core with two solid rocket motors on the side, then we will be just fine.

    I am optimistic in America. Is the free market that stupid that they cannot design HSF systems with limited government oversight? I submit that they are not. I additionally suggest that we will see an explosion in HSF around 2016 when we have multiple ways to access space on different vehicles.

    I think we can do some amazing things. However, we do have to shift the paradigm and also how the money flows from the 9th floor, and down to the 7th.

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ September 9th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    If the Nation first and foremost commits to the transportation systems the 1001 whys to do something in space can be pursued and everyone’s personal interests can be satisfied.

    Take this out of the hands of politicians and their constantly changing the goal posts every 2 and 4 years.

    Well said.

    No one demanded Eisenhower commit to specific destinations when he created the National Highway System. The goal was a system that allowed us to go anywhere.

    Focusing on a specific destination too quickly (like Constellation did), dooms us to going nowhere fast. And committing to a specific transportation mode (i.e. the SLS) before we know what our true needs are locks us into cost structures that sap our ability to go anywhere.

  • vulture4

    The SLS/Orion is a system more expensive than Shuttle. It’s cost is so high that it is inconceivable that a Republican Congress would actually fund the proposed mission. John McCain himself said so in 2004:
    http://spacelaunch.blogspot.com/2011/09/john-mccain-speaks-on-constellation-in.html

    The transcontinental railroad and the interstate highways were built in large part with federal tax dollars, but the common man or woman could travel on them. This is the strategy of Lori Garver and the Obama Administration. They would like to completely scrap the SLS and Orion and put the money into new reusable systems to make human access to LEO practical. They were forced to choose the asteroid mission from Augustine’s laundry list because it was the only alternative that didn’t require massive new investment in a lunar lander, but every realistic report on SLS/Orion/Constellation shows that it is an unaffordable dead end.

    This isn’t the 60’s. We aren’t in a race to plant a flag. BEO will be practical when we have major infrastructure in LEO and a way of getting there that makes it possible for a human in space to do work that is worth the cost of putting him/her there. That’s what Lori Garver wants to do, and her vision is dead on.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    No one demanded Eisenhower commit to specific destinations when he created the National Highway System.

    1. It’s the Interstate Highway System.
    2. There sure as were destinations in mind.

    Focusing on a specific destination too quickly (like Constellation did), dooms us to going nowhere fast. And committing to a specific transportation mode (i.e. the SLS) before we know what our true needs are locks us into cost structures that sap our ability to go anywhere.

    VSE set the destination, not Constellation. And the destination had nothing to do with Constellation’s failure.

  • @Glasser:

    I am optimistic in America. Is the free market that stupid that they cannot design HSF systems with limited government oversight?

    Has nothing to do with the capacity of private firms perform a task. Has everything to do with whether or not a viable market for the task exists in the first place. One thing’s for sure, cracking that market open before you and I die of old age will require a primary customer–and the only one with the checkbook and will to do it is the United States Congress.

    I submit that they are not. I additionally suggest that we will see an explosion in HSF around 2016 when we have multiple ways to access space on different vehicles.

    I question whether we’ll see an explosion, but if all goes well we should see at least a doubling of launch providers for cargo and crew. Of course, 2 times 2 isn’t exactly as sexy a future as we’d like, but it’s better than what we have now.

  • I’m hearing second hand but from a very reliable person that there’s going to be a presser this week by NASA and ATK down at KSC, relating to “accelerating” commercial crew access and a new agreement between the two. The presser will not be on NASA TV.

    The group list includes not only Mango, head of commercial crew, but guys from the group that builds Ariane 5 as well as ATK.

    Not hard to guess that this is going to be presented as some sort of scheme to accelerate “Liberty” and keep the 5 segment lines open for SLS in the meanwhile. In other words, throw more pork at the pork eaters in hopes it will sate them, and pretend that it will do something in the short term for ISS access (a laugh).

    Then sit back and find out that the price of sacrificing another arm to the crocodile is to lose your last remaining limb.

  • tom

    Major Tom… put your visor down next time you go for a space walk.

    1. You are making the argument that a small space station with a LEO/24 hour max life certified commercial capsule is a better and cheaper option. Orion is spacecraft that can act independentl, is complete and with all the systems a crew would need. Rethink your position.

    2. Orion would use its propulsion module to get home. Just like Apollo. Study the architecture.

    3. Orion never dropped the deployable radiation shields for lunar mission. You don’t need them for flying to ISS.

    3. Heat Shield , no. however I like the Boeing PICA-X it was one of 5 options looked at in 2007

    4. Transit time is determined by the engine….

    5. Ares I works. We wanted to use a 4 segment booster if possible for cost, but needed more push!

    6. The LOX damper works, was proven, added in the baseline and was to be part of production.

    7. Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013. Keep up with the news.

    Major Tom, your understanding goes only 1 to 2 charts deep. You have little knowledge of the topics at hand. In time you might. In time.

  • Michael from Iowa

    @tom
    “Ares I works.”
    Ares I was never built and never flew. The closest it came was a mocked up booster – which is a bit like painting the words ‘Bentley’ on the side of a Pinto and calling it a Continental.

  • Matt Wiser

    Ron, in case you missed it: have a look at this: Lunar return is back on the agenda as an action item. And you can bet that a successor administration is going to view NEO differently (hopefully in 2013). Said it before: moon first, then NEOs, then Mars. In that order.

    http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/30/7528922-space-agencies-set-two-courses

    The NASA leadership has admitted that they didn’t “make the sale.” re: the FY 11 budget-and they are still in recovery mode. It doesnt’ help the Administratio any that the hostility to their NASA plans is led by a Democratic Senator: Bill Nelson (D-FL). And even though Kay Bailey Hutchinson is retiring, it’s a bet that whoever gets the seat will fight very hard for JSC’s interests, regardless of party affiliation.

  • someguy

    tom wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    1. You are making the argument that a small space station with a LEO/24 hour max life certified commercial capsule is a better and cheaper option. Orion is spacecraft that can act independentl, is complete and with all the systems a crew would need. Rethink your position.

    Why is it important to act independently?

    Zodiac boats don’t operate independently except for a short time from the mother ship.

  • Vladislaw

    “2. There sure as were destinations in mind.”

    Actually it was to connect destinations for transportation systems, not to goto a destination.

  • Alex

    Re: Major Tom

    Do you have a link for Orion dropping the radiation shielding? The current Orion MPCV is the old Orion BEO config. Up thru the CxP cancellation, the config was for a descoped, LEO-only variation (basically, the only one
    Ares I could lift).

  • Rhyolite

    “4. Transit time is determined by the engine….”

    No, transit time is determined by orbital mechanics. The minimum energy trajectories will all have about the same flight time regardless of the vehicle.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Lunar return is back on the agenda as an action item.

    Matt, only Lunatics ever thought that the Moon was not a destination. All Obama said was that the NEXT destination for NASA was an asteroid. You and others interpreted that has him putting a big DO NOT ENTER sign on the Moon. Again, only Lunatics believe that.

    If you actually hear what commercial space supporters talk about, you would know that we want to lower the cost of doing things in space for EVERYWHERE, not just one destination.

    The SLS does not lower costs, and in fact it raises the cost of doing missions, so it is doing NOTHING to promote and sustain space exploration.

    The NASA leadership has admitted…

    So what? Bolden did a mea culpa, and the Administration got 80% of what they wanted. Congress didn’t seem to focus on it, only you. Get over it.

    Oh, and since you’re keeping track of all the mistakes people have admitted to in the distant past, the Senate members that created the SLS admitted that the SLS was a jobs program. Of course their mistake is far more costly, but it could be corrected as soon as this upcoming budget negotiations. Let’s hope!

  • DCSCA

    @usa wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 5:50 am

    “The Congress is only interested to keep the jobs in space industry, they don’t care about long term plans and results. I think it’s time to admit, America has lost the supremacy in human spaceflight.”

    They never did– at least for the ‘civilian’ space program. There’s a difference between “supremacy” and “leadership” and America’s civil manned and unmanned space programs have been chiefly reactive, not proactive, since their inception.

    On the other hand, the ‘dark’ space projects- DoD and otherwise– may be just the opposite. The general public may never know fully. Recall Corona. Secret for years, it was decidedly a proactive space project ‘of scale’ relatively speaking for its time, with some details only recently coming to light.

    American ‘long-term planning’ across the board is generally spotty at best, and often notoriously vague if not poor. Five-year plans, projections and so on in both the public and private sectors are largely exercises in guess work and starved for funding. Particularly in most corporate boardrooms, where quarterly driven profits to satisfy shareholder expectations is the raison d’etre.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Ares I works.

    In theory it worked, but it never made it to flight test, so we’ll never know. And it’s weird that you keep talking about it in the present case, since it is a dead vehicle.

    It’s like the Norwegian Blue parrot from Monty Python – it’s not “stunned”, it’s dead.

    The LOX damper works, was…” tested in the lab, but never tested on an actual flight. And if it didn’t work on an actual flight, that would have delayed the Ares I program for years more.

    But a sure sign of a bad design is when you have to keep relaxing crew safety standards and adding weight and complexity to fix a problem. Adding the upper-plane C-spring isolators and an upper-stage liquid oxygen (LOX) damper doesn’t result in more payload to space, it results in LESS. It doesn’t lower the cost of building the Ares I, it INCREASES it. And the initial Ares I concept isn’t safer than alternative rockets, it’s LESS SAFE.

    Tell me again what advantages Ares I was supposed to have over liquid-fueled rockets?

    Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013. Keep up with the news.

    Orion was replaced by the MPCV. Keep up with the news. ;-)

  • DCSCA

    “That’s what Lori Garver wants to do, and her vision is dead on.”

    Her “vision” is dead wrong– and as history has shown, quite nearsighted if not blurry at best. We’ve seen Garver’s ‘vision’ already- her blind support from her NSS days for the ISS– ‘an aerospace WPA project’ as Deke Slayton called it, an expensive, flying turkey totally out of sync with the current needs of the United States.

    Garver is a lobbyist. That’s all. Her ‘vision’ is to secure contracts for whatever aerospace firm she can. She sees no further than the next deal that can be cut. And the quicker both Garver and Bolden are jettisoned from NASA, the better.

  • DCSCA

    @tom wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 1:34 am

    One other bit of news getting talked about and most likely 98% rumor is that Mr. Charlie will resign early next year and Lori will receive a recess appointment to be Admin for the rest of Obama’s 1st term.

    Charlie, yes. It makes sense for him to go before he is pushed. One has to give him more sense than to preside over the death by ten thousand paper cuts of the space agency. Garver, no. She is a lobbyist by trade, lacks the gravitas and un-qualified to helm NASA as administrator through the Age of Austerity. Appointing Garver to that post would be a stake through the heart of NASA’s manned and space sciences programs.

  • common sense

    @ tom wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    The one who has demonstrated superficial knowledge of anything is you so far. When is Orion going to fly? On what LV? I thought it was going to be a major announcement lately as part of CCDev. You “knew”. Right?

  • Michael from Iowa

    @Coastal Ron
    Ares I’s not dead, ‘e’s just pinin’ for the fjords!

  • amightywind

    Ares I works. We wanted to use a 4 segment booster if possible for cost, but needed more push!

    Indeed! We wanted to add the 5th segment for ever anyway. It should have been tested with the shuttle. The Ares I 1st stage damping system worked. The rocket was well designed. Everything was in place. The failing was that moderate conservatism as exhausted and open the door for the Bolsheviks, to the ruin of all. We have no space program.

  • For those arguing over Moon vs. asteroid vs. Mars vs. Vulcan vs. whatever.

    Congress has not selected a destination. The President proposed an asteroid. Congress has not approved that program. All Congress has approved is building a vehicle (SLS) with no program or destination.

    A few members of Congress have claimed that SLS is a “backup” for commercial flights to the ISS, which is absurd. That’s like saying you ordered a Hummer as a backup for the compact you use to drive down to the corner 7-11.

    The only destination currently authorized by Congress is ISS. Congress has shown no inclination to approve any other destination for human space flight.

  • Aviation Week on the SLS cost per the Booz Allen independent analysis:

    “NASA Sees Testing SLS In 2017 for $18B”

    Early cost estimates for the heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) that Congress has ordered NASA to build indicate the agency believes it can test an unmanned version of the “core” vehicle selected by Administrator Charles Bolden for about $18 billion by the end of 2017 …

    That core would use surplus space shuttle main engines and the J-2X upper-stage engine now in development. With upgrades approved by Bolden after a lengthy engineering analysis within NASA, the rocket could “evolve” to the 130-metric-ton capability Congress ordered in the three-year NASA reauthorization act passed and signed by President Barack Obama in December 2010.

    There’s a reason why that publication is nicknamed Aviation Leak …

  • tom

    Orion will fly on a ULA EELV in 2013- Atlas V is better, but Delta IV will do. I hope we see many new spacecraft flying by then in a test or full up configuration. FYI all that nifty abort system stuff developed from 2007-2010 is available. Motors, triggers, models.. oh my. Newspace Co’s just have to ask for it. Would save some years!

  • tom

    3 different people said no to being NASA admin beacuse Lori was a must part of the deal. She has access to Obama, lot more than Mr. Charlie.

  • Vladislaw

    Stephen C. Smith wrote:

    “Aviation Week on the SLS cost per the Booz Allen independent analysis:

    “NASA Sees Testing SLS In 2017 for $18B” “

    Also from that article:

    “NASA already has spent about $5 billion on the Orion capsule, which could fly unmanned in 2017 for another $6 billion, plus $0.7 billion for full-cost accounting. The “21st Century Ground Systems” Congress ordered for the new vehicle would cost about $2 billion, plus a $0.4 billion full-cost escalator.”

    If NASA and LM say it will cost 6.7 billion to finish the MPCV enough for an unmanned launch in 2017, why is Tom saying they will be flying it in 2013?

  • tom

    “Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013. Keep up with the news.”

    Orion was replaced by the MPCV. Keep up with the news.

    It’s still Orion. Bet the name sticks (again)…. :)

  • tom

    “Adding the upper-plane C-spring isolators and an upper-stage liquid oxygen (LOX) damper doesn’t result in more payload to space, it results in LESS. It doesn’t lower the cost of building the Ares I, it INCREASES it.”

    100% true.

  • Bennett

    “FYI all that nifty abort system stuff developed from 2007-2010 is available.”

    Well, it’s obvious that an engineer, you are not. The LAS developed for Ares-1 is in no way transferable to any other LV. It was designed to abort from an SRB based LV and is totally useless for the flight profile of a kero-lox booster system.

    Not to mention that other than the MPCV, the leading capsules for human transport to LEO are both building pusher type LAS.

    If you don’t know the technical specs of CCDev participants, why do you think you are qualified to comment on their value versus the SLS/MPCV?

    Spare us the nonsense, okay?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Tom. You can keep repeating something but that does not make iot any more accurate. rRobert Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    FYI all that nifty abort system stuff developed from 2007-2010 is available. Motors, triggers, models.. oh my. Newspace Co’s just have to ask for it.

    Everyone would already know that, and apparently they don’t plan on using any of it.

    That’s not surprising, since the whole system was built to outrun an uncontrollable solid-fuel motor, and all the CCDev participants are using liquid-fuel rockets.

    Would save some years!

    Yes, just like it save years of time for Ares I – Safe, Simple and Soon, indeed… ;-)

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    3 different people said no to being NASA admin beacuse Lori was a must part of the deal.

    A rocket expert AND a Obama political insider – my, we ARE talented, aren’t we?

  • josh

    “A rocket expert AND a Obama political insider – my, we ARE talented, aren’t we?”

    i guess he likes to feel important…

  • tom

    “3 different people said no to being NASA admin because Lori was a must part of the deal.”

    –“A rocket expert AND a Obama political insider – my, we ARE talented, aren’t we?”

    Yes, but my friends are even more. I just listen.

    Also for the abort stuff -motors, triggers, models … that transfers to just about anything. Never said the aeroshell. More to aborts than the aeroshell.

    Never going to outrun the SRB. It would blow with in 3 sec of receipt of the 2nd command (when you’re still within 5000 meters). Remember the problem of the parachutes getting cooked during a 1st stage abort? The SRB would make some abort scenarios just about unsurvivable. But it always had to do with the air getting heated to a point nothing was going to make it (and debris).

    Anyhow. Yes I’m a rocket guy. Also worked on Galileo, ISS, DSN, X-43, Ares I, Shuttle (before it flew). Worked with ESA and JAXA. I’ve developed and flown experiment on the shuttle. I know a good deal, not near all of it, but more than most of you and less than sum. This could be fun and a good way to share info. Like I once said some staffers read this stuff looking for ideas. That’s how I found you. Be positive, cut the hate, put forth ideas!

  • tom

    To fly Orion on SLS is different than flying in on a ULA EELV. The spacecraft will be ready well before the rocket.

  • tom

    One more point on the LOX Damper. To be clear. It gets inserted into the LOX tank during construction. It’s 100% new science and ITAR. It would have to be introduced into Ariane V production for Liberty. Than fact could be a game changer for Liberty. Liberty will have the same thrust vibration problems as Ares I

  • Martijn Meijering

    It’s 100% new science

    Engineering, not science.

  • vulture4

    DCSCA wrote: “We’ve seen Garver’s ‘vision’ already- her blind support from her NSS days for the ISS– ‘an aerospace WPA project’ as Deke Slayton called it, an expensive, flying turkey totally out of sync with the current needs of the United States.”

    The ISS was funded under Clinton (after slipping interminably under Reagan and Bush) because it satisfied the geopolitical goal of building trust and understanding between nuclear adversaries. It is particularly valuable because it is international, though Griffin tried to undermine this. It can provide further value as a port of call for every new RLV design, as a site for ground and space observation, and as an orbiting fuel depot and test site for new propulsion technologies like VASIMIR. Most important, it is a foothold in space, not a footprint.

    I saw Dan Golden intimidate advisors who did not agree with him and take a perfectly doable proposal for the JWST and price it out of existence by off-handedly doubling its size. I saw Sean O’Keefe claim the X-33 took off horizontally and violated the laws of physics, and that Constellation would be fine with a total budget of $12B. I saw Mike Griffin force the “Exploration Systems Architecture Study” team to conclude his Powerpoint Ares I design was the best possible choice by making obviously biased and incredible assumptions in both the cost and risk models. I saw Charlie Bolden pantomime Russian roulette while talking about the Shuttle to shuttle workers. Three Bush appointees and one Democratic alternate haven’t left us in very good shape.

    I was in the L-5 Society for quite a few years, personally asking people to support the space program, organizing public meetings, putting up posters, getting astronauts to sign pictures for congressmen. I know getting taxpayer support for human spaceflight is tough. So does Garver. She isn’t an egotist like Golden or Griffin. Unlike O’Keefe, she understands the technology. Unlike Bolden, I have yet to see her say anything that wasn’t carefully reasoned and logically coherent. NASA needs a leader who is consistent, reliable, logical, and accurate, who has clear goals that will produce practical advances. If anyone has concrete evidence (not personal bias or unsubstantiated opinion) that Garver is not the best person for the job, please present it.

  • Coastal Ron

    tom wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 2:06 am

    I just listen.

    “I have a friend whose neighbor heard from a guy at the gas station that his nephew was standing outside the room when someone got off the phone talking with the NASA Administrator search committee. And what HE heard was….”

    Yes, a clear line of evidence that supports your claims. Or maybe you’re like Forest Gump, and you’re just in the right place at the right time in history.

    I think you need to make up your mind about how you want to be believed – either as a rocket engineer, or someone that hears real political intel. No one will believe you can do both.

  • 3 different people said no to being NASA admin beacuse Lori was a must part of the deal. She has access to Obama, lot more than Mr. Charlie.

    Neither you, or your friends, know what they’re talking about.

  • I think you need to make up your mind about how you want to be believed – either as a rocket engineer, or someone that hears real political intel. No one will believe you can do both.

    There isn’t much evidence that he can do either.

  • common sense

    “Anyhow. Yes I’m a rocket guy.”

    Alright let’s see.

    “Also worked on Galileo,”

    Galileo is arocket? Hmmm.

    “ISS”,

    ISS a rocket… Okay…

    “DSN,”

    DSN? A rocket? Really?

    “X-43,”

    X-43 a rocket… Yeah, why not…

    “Ares I,”

    Ah okay a rocket. Well it never flew, never will but it’s a rocket. It may explain a thing or two though if you worked on it.

    “Shuttle (before it flew).”

    Shuttle is a rocket. Okay. If you say so.

    “I’ve developed and flown experiment on the shuttle.”

    And that is evidence that you are a “rocket guy”?

    “I know a good deal, not near all of it,”

    Obviously. Just as anyone.

    “but more than most of you and less than sum.”

    More than most of us? Do you have 6 degrees or something? Less than “sum”? What kind of experiments did you actually fly on Shuttle. I am getting a little nervous when I read your prose.

    “This could be fun and a good way to share info.”

    No it “could” not. It actually is, especially when we share info between us “rocket guys”.

    “Like I once said some staffers read this stuff looking for ideas.”

    So far the staffers have impressed me so much. Especially those who write Sen. Hutchinson or Nelson or Shelby their recommendations. Maybe just maybe these staffers ought to visit and talk with real rocket guys. They might make progress. Then of course they would understand how ridiculous Ares and SLS and MPCV and their descendants really are and they would have to change jobs but what the heck.

    “That’s how I found you.”

    How? Listening to staffers? To real rocket guys? To us machiavellian, ignorant, illiterate commercial advocates?

    “Be positive,”

    Go CCDev!!! Go SRS! Go BO, SpaceX, Boeing, SNC!!!! Go commercial!!!

    “cut the hate,”

    There is no hate, save for some MPCV/SLS huggers.

    “put forth ideas!”

    Dump MPCV and SLS. Increase budget for CCDev when we dump the dead wood. Trim contractors at NASA. Trim useless management. Dump MPCV. Trim red tape. Open better communication channels between NASA engineers/scientist and the industry, academia, international partners (usual and non usual). Dump MPCV. Develop technology. Dump SLS. Increase budget for science and aeronautics. Dump MPCV. Dump SLS.

    How’s that?

    Peace…

  • DCSCA

    @vulture4 wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The space station project was initiated by President Reagan and boldly so in a SoU speech. Original cost estimates- $8 billion. Today- it is at $100 billion and climbing— and has yet to return anything of value for the 25 year expense. Slayton was correct- it is an aerospace works project. Garver’s own record disqualifies her as a competent candidate for NASA administrator. She is a lobbyist- no more, no less. Wise up.

  • GuessWho

    R.S. – “Neither you, or your friends, know what they’re talking about. …

    There isn’t much evidence that he can do either.”

    As opposed to you who is neither and offers nothing but personal attacks in lieu of reasoned debate. Ditto for C-Ron. I have no idea what “Tom” has or had not heard, but to call him a liar implies you do. I find the latter to be even more suspect than Tom’s claims. What does that make you then?

    Further, I know a number of “rocket engineers” that have excellent access to and are heavily involved in the political arena and are quite comfortable in either. I don’t share names because it is none of your business what they do on either front. If that makes me a liar in your “enlightened” judgement, that is your problem, not mine.

  • DCSCA

    @tom wrote @ September 10th, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    “3 different people said no to being NASA admin beacuse Lori was a must part of the deal.”

    Then they’re three smart people because a good administrator must have the authority to select their own team, sans Garver.

    You want to save the core of a viable, manned and unmanned space program that can access reasonable funding streams and develop projects of scale through the Age of Austerity then the best chance it has of survivng death by a thousand budget cuts is as a civilian division tucked under the wing of the DoD, ‘protected’ as an element of ‘national security.’ As it is structured today, a ‘stand alone’ NASA is a sitting duck for budget cuts by politicians desperate to show voters they’re shaving monies from the deficits.

  • Bennett

    common sense wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Now that is why I enjoy reading your comments. Thanks!

  • I have no idea what “Tom” has or had not heard, but to call him a liar implies you do.

    I didn’t call him a liar. I’m sure he believes his nonsense.

    Further, I know a number of “rocket engineers” that have excellent access to and are heavily involved in the political arena and are quite comfortable in either.

    So do I. I’m one of them.

    If that makes me a liar in your “enlightened” judgement, that is your problem, not mine.

    Why do you fantasize that I’ve called anyone a liar?

  • common sense

    @ GuessWho wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    “Further, I know a number of “rocket engineers” that have excellent access to and are heavily involved in the political arena and are quite comfortable in either. ”

    Well it is disheartening when we see SLS and MPCV.

    Are you sure they are “rocket engineers”?

    Oh well…

  • Be positive, cut the hate, put forth ideas!

    NASA as currently constituted is incapable of effectively expanding human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit in a sustainable (i.e. 50+ year) fashion. It cannot serve two masters. On the one side NASA is the agency that does the experimental, innovative, edge-of-the-envelope stuff. On the other hand, it is also expected to do the mundane, safe, operational stuff. These two realms intersect poorly. NASA can certainly provide much of the technological innovation necessary for that sustained and increasing human presence in space, but you can’t run the mundane operations on experimental vehicles. There aren’t enough of them, the reliability is low, and so the costs are too high.

    Junking the SLS, as with junking Constellation, is merely treating a symptom. At root, NASA needs a fundamental restructuring to become a much smaller agency focusing solely on that bleeding edge. The more mundane operations, such as procurement of transport to LEO, as well as the space related operation of the Air Force, NOAA, and other US government agencies should be handled by a new agency altogether: a Space Guard, modeled after the Coast Guard.

    Even if the total budget of NASA and the Space Guard was less than the current budget of NASA, both agencies would be far more effective.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Even if the total budget of NASA and the Space Guard was less than the current budget of NASA, both agencies would be far more effective.

    The only problem with this is we have a commercail launch industry. NASA launch its own rockets is a waste of money when you have companies that can do that for you.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
    So do I. I’m one of them.

    It doesn’t show. You’re part of the problem- not a source for solutions.

  • josh

    i agree, pathfinder. maybe the coming budget cuts to nasa are a good thing. the agency is so dysfunctional and the ‘primes’ too that it’s probably better to starve the beast and start over.

  • Pathfinder, for such routine things as access to LEO, the Space Guard would procure transit from commercial operators – much the same way NASA flies its people around the country on commercial flights, or launches its big scientific payloads on Atlas or Delta rockets. NASA would not launch anything from the Earth’s surface themselves. Instead, they’d be operating out at the bleeding edge, doing the experimental work in space.

  • Vladislaw

    “It doesn’t show. You’re part of the problem- not a source for solutions.”

    It doesn’t matter what solution is offered, unless it is roll NASA into the DOD you are against it.

  • William Mellberg

    Josh wrote:

    “i agree, pathfinder. maybe the coming budget cuts to nasa are a good thing. the agency is so dysfunctional and the ‘primes’ too that it’s probably better to starve the beast and start over.”

    This is what Apollo 17 astronaut-scientist and former U.S. Senator Harrison Schmitt suggested in his May 25th statement calling for the dismantlement of NASA and the creation of a new, deep space exploration agency. He has discussed his proposal in several forums since then, including this television interview:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7gZMbOkIFc&feature=player_embedded

  • DCSCA

    Vladislaw wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Look back at the path NASA has travelled since the Apollo days and you’ll see it has been bleeding and dying a slow death by a thousand paper/budget cuts through much better fiscal times. Tucking it under the wing of DoD as a civilian division through the Age of Austerity, charged with R&D for ‘national security’ purposes offers a viable chance of core projects needing stable funding over mid and long term time frames of surviving. As of now, NASA as a stand along civil agency with a high profile is a sitting duck for politcians who wanna run home to constituents and tell them Granny’s Medicare and SS gets saved because they cut some goofy, expensive telescope.

  • spacermase

    “It doesn’t matter what solution is offered, unless it is roll NASA into the DOD you are against it.”

    You know, I’ve come up with a theory that I think explains a lot of Mr.DCSCA’s views (giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not just a troll). I think that, subconsciously, DCSCA doesn’t actually care all that much about what NASA does- however, the *image* of NASA greatly concerns him.

    From anyone who has read his posts, it is obvious that he idolizes the Apollo Era as NASA’s glory days (and to be fair, most people would probably agree with him). It was NASA made up of no-nonsense fighter and test pilots and steely eyed engineers who built the spacecraft that the pilots flew, powered by a strong government mandate and strong militaristic, Cold-War overtones. It was glamorous, it was daring, and the public was (mostly) enamored by it. DCSCA, I believe, has taken this to be NASA’s ideal state, and is consequently enormously resistant to anything that might take NASA farther away from that.

    Commercial astronauts flying instead of former-fighter jocks? How vulgar. Space science and astronomy? The NASA of the 1960’s had no use for that, and neither should we. Planetary probes? Sorry, not up to snuff, either. The ISS? Von Braun never had any plans for it, and Slayton said it was a waste of money anyway, so therefore it must be. Bolden and Garver? Neither of them are James Webb, and so they’ve got to go.

    The reason I think this is subconscious is that, paradoxically, DCSCA will be the first to tell you that he views a civilian NASA as Cold War relic, and appears to be acutely aware that those days are long gone. But this outlook is the only thing that makes his arguments make sense and seem coherent, such as his seemingly contradictory opinions that space science should turn to the private sector but HSF should not, and of course, his old saw about folding NASA into the DoD despite the fact he’s never been able to explain what use exactly DoD would have for NSF.

    Well, it’s either that, or maybe he has an extremely mild autistic spectrum disorder and/or a near-pathological fear of change.

  • Tucking it under the wing of DoD as a civilian division through the Age of Austerity

    The troll’s obsessive/compulsive disorder strikes again.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Tucking it under the wing of DoD as a civilian division through the Age of Austerity

    Just to be clear, your solution is not to address any of the managerial, budgetary or program issues that NASA has, just to hide NASA in the DoD’s budget and hope it doesn’t get noticed.

    You seem to think that running and hiding from problems somehow solves them – I think your nickname should be “The Ostrich”. ;-)

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi tom –

    You have to remember that attacks are part of the ATK game – and they want to identify you, as you’re talking about the Ares 1 abort probalems, which carry over to SLS if the 5 segs are used.

    There are also insecure people around with nothing better to do; a lot of them have “hidden” obsessions. Asking “Why?” is a godd way to identify those.

    I’ve had a stroke and am pretty much out of it, so care to share on the what happened to the Gration nomination?

    Any word on when the MASA mess with impactor detection is goind to be cleaned up?

    How are things going with Reid? Any log rolling with Hatch?

  • Major Tom

    “1. You are making the argument that a small space station with a LEO/24 hour max life certified commercial capsule is a better and cheaper option.”

    No, I’m not. Reread my posts. I’m arguing that Orion/MPCV is way too expensive a vehicle to serve this function. NASA can’t afford to throw $2B+ away each year on a couple, lousy ISS crew rotations.

    “Orion is spacecraft that can act independentl, [sic]”

    Whoop-dee-doo. So can every other capsule.

    “is complete and with all the systems a crew would need.”

    Your statement is meaningless. “Complete” and “need” are defined in terms of the functions needed to carry out a mission or set of missions.

    “2. Orion would use its propulsion module to get home. Just like Apollo. Study the architecture.”

    Learn basic celestial mechanics. An architecture built on minimum energy transfers isn’t determined by the model of capsule used.

    “3. Orion never dropped the deployable radiation shields for lunar mission.”

    Yes, they did. The ZBV was a lunar sortie vehicle.

    “5. Ares I works.”

    Based on what? How does the atmospheric launch of a four-segment SRB first-stage with different propellant grain and geometry, a dummy upper-stage, and a dummy mass Orion running on Atlas V avionics with two SRB-damaging parachute failures demonstrate that a five-segment SRB and a J2-X upper stage “works” to take an actual Orion capsule to orbit?

    That’s like saying my wife’s SUV works reliably because a two-wheel moped with no engine and a box strapped to the back can roll downhill and crash into a tree.

    “We wanted to use a 4 segment booster if possible for cost, but needed more push!”

    “We”? I doubt you were in the decision chain on Ares I.

    Regardless, the only reason Griffin, Horowitz, and others needed more “push” is because they were stupid enough to employ a first-stage LOX/hydrogen engine (the SSME) in an upper-stage application (the original Ares I second-stage) in the first place.

    “6. The LOX damper works, was proven,”

    Nothing “was proven”. It was only modeled:

    http://www.spacenews.com/civil/fix-for-ares-vibration-issue.html

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “added in the baseline and was to be part of production.”

    Evidence? Reference? Link?

    Ares I was years away from CDR. (It arguably never finished PDR.) Nothing was “in the baseline” for “production” because there was no production design.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “7. Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013.”

    NASA has baselined no plans to do so.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “Rethink your position.”

    You’ve provided not even a single reason to do so.

    “Major Tom, your understanding goes only 1 to 2 charts deep. You have little knowledge of the topics at hand.”

    I’ll take my “1 to 2 charts deep” understanding over someone who thinks that:

    — a LOX damper (or any other piece of equipment that’s never been tested or demonstrated at scale) works just because a computer model says it might,

    — the four-segment/dummy Ares I-X parachute failures proved much of anything for an operational five-segment/J-2X vehicle,

    — the Ares I production design had been finalized because the project had barely passed PDR and was years from CDR,

    — the Orion ZBV was an ISS vehicle,

    — a remibursable Delta IV reservation made by industry represents a decision by the government (NASA) to fly MPCV before 2017.

    Please…

  • DCSCA

    @spacermase wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    You really don’t get it. Ask space science to justify the costs in the face of the Age of Austerity or worse, generate a profit? Pshaw! That’s heresy. Why would Apple or Google or Master Musk fund a space science project if they can’t make a buck at it– why, then, should the government. That’s like funding HSF and not making a buck at it either, because the goal of private enterprise in space is to make a profit- to exploit, not to explore, and space exploitaton is not space exploration… unless you can show your ‘exploration’ can be profitable.

    By avoiding that fundamental truth, you’re making a defacto admission that space science is not a profitable enterprise, and for a debt and deficit riddled government, a drain on the Treasury. That’s the same argument made against HSF. What you seem to overlook is that if a DoD space project of scale- science, R&D or HSF in nature, is directed by civilian authority to be implemented, they’ll salute smartly– and have NASA get at it, with ‘nat’l security’ as a safety net to keep budgets stable throough fiscally tight times- and make no mistake, this era is going to be a long time. And FYI. von Braun did advocated a space station all his life- as a way station for human exploration out to the moon and on to Mars.

    William Mellberg wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    There may be some merit to his proposal. It certainly would clear away the cobwebs, ghosts and debris of past administrations. But starting a ‘new’ government agerncy in the Age of Austerity, with barbarians at the gate chanting for less government activities, not more, seems unlikely. Rather, consolidating space efforts

  • DCSCA

    @William Mellberg wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    [continued from above]…. Rather, consolidating space efforts would save money and keep projects of scale, by necessity needing steady, long term funding, a chance of surviving.

  • DCSCA

    @spacermase wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    A postscript- FYI, ‘commerical’ astronauts have been flying aboard shuttle for the bulk of the 30 year program; Apollo managed to get a scientist astronaut to the moon on the last lunar landing and most of the Skylab crews were medical/scientist astronauts. So you really don’t get it.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 5:12 am

    ‘commerical’ astronauts have been flying aboard shuttle for the bulk of the 30 year program

    The benefits of using a documented language is that word definitions don’t change just because it doesn’t support someones argument.

    The word “Commercial” means:

    1 concerned with or engaged in commerce : a commercial agreement.
    2 making or intended to make a profit : commercial products.

    Non-government employees that flew on the Shuttle did so as guests of the U.S. Government. No one, in the history of the Shuttle program, was able to purchase a ticket to ride on the Shuttle in order to conduct commercial operations that were separate from NASA’s needs.

    Apollo managed to get a scientist astronaut to the moon on the last lunar landing and most of the Skylab crews were medical/scientist astronauts.

    Government employees all. You do realize that not all NASA employees are military test pilots, right?

  • Vladislaw

    DCSCA wrote:

    “Look back at the path NASA has travelled since the Apollo days and you’ll see it has been bleeding and dying a slow death by a thousand paper/budget cuts through much better fiscal times.”

    Your solution for a government agency that lacks funding support is to switch it to another government agency for funding?

    How about we just do what the government has did the vast majority of the times in the past. Move it out of government and push it into the private sector. Free up some of NASA’s high costs to gain multiplier effects from private capital.

    It costs NASA 7 billion a year just to pay wages and keep the lights on. That leaves 11 billion for everything else including all hardware.

    How about we chop 200 million a month from NASA’s workforce involved in launching and instead NASA just buys a service. You know, the American way.

  • kayawanee

    DCSCA wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Look back at the path NASA has travelled since the Apollo days and you’ll see it has been bleeding and dying a slow death by a thousand paper/budget cuts through much better fiscal times. Tucking it under the wing of DoD as a civilian division through the Age of Austerity, charged with R&D for ‘national security’ purposes offers a viable chance of core projects needing stable funding over mid and long term time frames of surviving.

    It’s a noble thought, but I’m not sure one thing necessarily flows to the other. Military projects get cut all the time. Just look at the F-22 Raptor program. Maybe R&D is treated differently, but I’m not aware of any guarantee you’ll receive simply by “tucking” a space project into the military. Regardless of where a program sits, it still has to justify itself.

  • DCSCA

    kayawanee wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Yes but it will be easier for advocates with the DoD ‘nat’l security’ mantre to present an postion that has a chance to save a stable funding lne- and of course the DoD has deep pockets to secure funding lines. NASSA simply doesn’t. And the ‘sacrifice’ of savings by presenting a ‘consolidation’ of space operations alone could placate budget cutters to start looking at other areas of DoD or other agencies completely.

  • Coastal Ron

    Windy Jr. (DCSCA) wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    the DoD has deep pockets to secure funding lines.

    The DoD gets it’s money from the Treasury – it doesn’t borrow it.

    And the ‘sacrifice’ of savings by presenting a ‘consolidation’ of space operations

    So all of NASA will be folded into the DoD’s X-37 program?

    What a maroon.

Leave a Reply to Martijn Meijering 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>