Although it wasn’t on the committee’s schedule over the weekend, the Senate Appropriations Committee has added a markup of the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, which includes NASA and NOAA, for Wednesday afternoon at 2:30 pm. That will be followed by a full committee markup of the same bill Thursday at 2 pm. As noted over the weekend, the Senate budget allocation for the CJS bill is slightly higher than the House version, but how that translate into funding for these agencies remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee announced Monday plans to hold a full committee hearing on “NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future: Where Do We Go From Here?”. Scheduled witnesses included former astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan as well as former NASA administrator Mike Griffin. As all three have been critical of the current administration’s space policy to varying degrees, readers can draw their own conclusions about what the hearing’s atmosphere will be like.
” Scheduled witnesses included former astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan as well as former NASA administrator Mike Griffin.”
I am going to make a bold prediction. President Obama is wrong about everything, Griffin was right about everything. If only the congress will restart Constellation, add billions to the budget everything will be unaffordable, unsustainable BUT the Nation will have a big rocket to look at before it is canceled in the future as to expensive.
Oh this is going to be good. Stay tuned for drinking rules!
300 million people in the U.S. Over 300 astronauts have flown on the shuttle. Scores of astronauts are now executives at various aerospace companies building the next generation of spacecraft.
So the House drags back the same three people that they had testify previously, none of which have flown in space in the last four decades, and none of which is currently employed in the aerospace industry (unless you count Griffin’s gratis lobbying for ATK).
How do Armstrong and Cernan address the question of “Where Do We Go From Here?”, when they haven’t been “Here” for four decades?
And Griffin? Congress canceled his vision (Constellation), and they are getting ready to cancel a major program he mismanaged (JWST). Why would they want to listen to anything he has to say? Unless it’s political… nah, that couldn’t be it, could it?
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how two Astronauts that participated in a program that ended more than 39 years ago can provide useful critical analysis for the future of human spaceflight. Neither of them stayed at NASA afterwards and helped develop other programs or even worked in government much afterwards.
It is not like von Braun (the early Space program’s chief architect) or another high-level Apollo program manager or engineer is testifying about what led them to make the design choices they made then. Gaining knowledge of those design & engineering choices might actually be useful for us to determine what we really should do next.
And maybe that is the real answer, we should look back at the choices the early NASA team looked at. They had a fixed schedule (1969), arguable we do not have that.
This hearing’s gonna be good. And the witnesses are the ones the Administration has been treating with contempt. Throw in Norm Augustine and somebody like Gene Kranz or Chris Kraft and it’d be perfect. By ignoring what the former two witnesses have said in the past, the Administration guaranteed a skeptical reception (at best) in Congress for their NASA plans. Not selling the original plan in that disaster of a rollout known as FY 11 didn’t help. Charlie Bolden himself has admitted as such, and the Administration has been in recovery mode ever since.
Playing the Apollo Heroes card is probably a good move on the part of the SLS camp. Bringing in Griffin is not so smart, as he does not have their glamor and has way too much attackable baggage. I’d expect that this hearing is unlikely to have substantial and lasting effect, but we’ll see.
I guess Sen. Nelson and friends are running low on soundbites for their senate launch system press releases.
If those are really the only witnesses, what a waste of time and taxpayer money. Like Ron said, it’s not like those three haven’t had a chance to give their opinions already.
I’ll say it again. I’ll bet Mike is angling to return to NASA leadership. His anti-Obama comments a few weeks ago seemed designed to endear himself the the GOP, and he’s clearly all about domestic federal space policy. He’s landed in an academic job that is a classic “holding pattern” position, where his responsibilities are minimal, and he can easily try to launch himself back into relevance. In that position, though, his relevance will continue to fade. He has to make his move soon, and November of 2012 would suit him well. He could have had any number of major aerospace corporation leadership positions when he left the agency, of the kind his predecessors slid into. No, Mike wants something else, and I’m pretty sure I know what. Cozying up to the GOP Chair of House Science with some Apollo astronauts on his sleeve won’t hurt.
Agreed CR. Not even worth watching.
Only the Mike Griffin could devalue any experienced commentaries and wisdom imparted in testimony from Armstrong and Cernan. It’s like hearing from Wilbur, Orville and then having ‘Wrong Way’ Corrigan add his two cents. Griffin is like that bad cold Wally Schirra couldn’t shake on Apollo 7. Just won’t go away. Memo to Mike- Ares was a lousy rocket. You are no Wernher Von Braun. Both Cernan and Armstrong know this- they knew him, had confidence in him and rode his Saturn rocket, which worked. Now please do spaceflight a favor and stay away from it. Be gone!
@Coastal Ron wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
“300 million people in the U.S. Over 300 astronauts have flown on the shuttle.”
And only 12 have flown spacecraft down to and back from the lunar surface. Congress will hear from the first and last to date. Wise perspective. That experienced commentary carries more weight than any LEO perspective shuttle astronauts could provide– and besides, both Armstrong and Cernan have LEO flight experience if they need to discuss it.
I have to agree that this threatens to be pointless arm-waving. Unless someone can come up with a system that is affordable and sustainable, then performance requirements and job/skills protection won’t matter because, even if the thing is built, it will be a new Saturn-V and only fly for a couple of dozen times tops.
Keith Cowling over on NASAWatch is right. We all know Armstrong, Griffin and Cernan’s opinions. The problem is that there are very real issues (political, financial and engineering) that are preventing the things they regard as necessities for space exploration actually becoming a reality. Basically having them re-state their opinions again is a waste of Congressional time if no-one is planning on acting on what they say (which they aren’t).
It would be a lot more useful if Rep Hall had summoned the heads of ATK, ULA, PWR and some other companies and say to them all: “We can afford $X over the next five years before the Soyuz contract ends. We need US-indigenous crew launch back by then, ideally in a form that can be quickly and cheaply modified for BLEO missions. Given those inviolable constraints, what is the best-performing system that you can give us in that time for that amount of money?” Give them two weeks to ask their people and to come back with ideas; pass those to E-Street by roller-blade courier. Tell Administrator Bolden to action the one that works best immediately or submit his resignation on the grounds that he lacks the ability to do the job to the President by the same courier.
The Senate committee hearings at least sometimes have balanced hearings with pro-CCDev people testifying along with pro status quo witnesses. The House committee hearings are always stacked with only people highly favorable of SLS and MPCV. It’s a travesty of representatives from certain areas trying to preserve their pork by making it look more favorable than it is.
..another example of our form of governments bankruptcy
In an article, I just was reading. NASA is to sign on with ATK in the development of Liberty. Round and around it goes and where it stops nobody knows. After that successful engine test of the five segment, it looks like Liberty will fly, in one form or another.
@Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 5:42 am
They’re posturing for the next budget/election cycle. There is no other reason for Griffin to be there. Armstrong will pitch historical analysis and perspective with HSF activities in the context of their times; Cernan will present the passion and revisit his famed intangibles, teeing everything up for ‘Scholar’ Griffin to try to salvage his reputation in trhe industry and reiterate his engineering ‘vision’ for a lousy rocket named Ares.
While the House panel performs its little kabuki dance, NASA TV will air at 3 PM EDT the press conference announcing the commercial crew agreement between NASA, ATK and EADS North America.
I’ll be watching the latter. The former, I can recreate myself using sock puppets.
@Dennis
“In an article, I just was reading. NASA is to sign on with ATK in the development of Liberty.”
I think this is a sign that ATK realizes SLS has no real future.
Dennis wrote:
After that successful engine test of the five segment, it looks like Liberty will fly, in one form or another.
Liberty lacks a crew vehicle. They’re hoping to lure away from LockMart one of the potential Atlas V customers (CST-100, Dream Chaser, New Shepard).
Jeff stated As all three (Armstrong, Cernan, Griffin). have been critical of the current administration’s space policy to varying degrees, readers can draw their own conclusions about what the hearing’s atmosphere will be like
Readers could also draw their own conclusions if the Committee’s invited speakers were active pro-Administration people.
Please, can someone turn the page and let’s move on.
I was just reading again, where SpaceX admitted to an anomaly in their Dragon flight. The claim is, that it would in no way affect the coming Cots flight to the ISS. Lets hope not. As to SLS not having a future. Presently it looks like a go for the Orion test flight aboard a Delta in a couple years. Quite probably NASA in the end will get its own rocket tough! Whatever it takes to get moving again..
It’s another unfunded Space Act Agreement. ATK still has to find a customer.
NASA’s top line will suffer under the axe of the Super Committee of 12 if the Administration & Congress do not start working together. P.L. 111-267 was signed by President Obama. If he intended on ignoring the Congressional Democrats, he should never have signed the bill into law.
All the negative rhetoric between the Old guys at ATK, Lockheed, Boeing, PWR etc and the New guys at Space X, Sierra Nevada, CSF, etc must be put aside if we ever hope to survive. Maybe someone has enough money to build a rocket to go beyond Low Earth orbit but I have not seen anyone step up to the plate. Heck even the New guys say they need NASA money. So think about it.
Tricia wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 9:46 am
“Maybe someone has enough money to build a rocket to go beyond Low Earth orbit but I have not seen anyone step up to the plate.”
Then you’re not looking very hard. But then again you may be assuming that everything that has to go beyond LEO has to launch on one rocket. It doesn’t.
If you’ll remember, the Constellation architecture was set up for LEO rendezvous, with the Ares V taking up the payload and EDS, and the Ares I taking up the crew vehicle and crew. Even Griffin couldn’t build a large enough rocket to do everything on one launch.
So since everyone agrees that future missions will need in-space mission assembly, it’s just a matter of figuring out how small those modular components can be. If they are ISS sized, which is less than 50,000 lbs and 5m in diameter, then you can use Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5 and Proton. Need more rockets? Atlas V Heavy is 3 years away from flying, and Falcon Heavy will fly it’s first test around 2014.
“Heck even the New guys say they need NASA money.”
No NASA money is needed for the rockets. You’re confusing rockets with commercial crew, and they are only meant to be LEO taxis at this point. The MPCV is the only funded vehicle for going beyond LEO, and even it can use the rockets we already have.
In short, the only thing stopping us from going beyond LEO is HLV proponents saying we can only go if we use an HLV.
DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 4:17 am
“And only 12 have flown spacecraft down to and back from the lunar surface. Congress will hear from the first and last to date. Wise perspective.”
Yes, wise perspective IF CONGRESS HAD FUNDED A MOON PROGRAM.
But they haven’t, and the budget forecast is not likely to change that. So listening to two people that haven’t flown in space for four decades doesn’t offer anything new. You probably have 30 year old interviews with them that would offer fresher perspectives on what they experienced during their lunar missions than they’ll be able to remember next week.
Here’s what I think will happen at the hearing:
Chairman Hall: Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Cernan, are you ready to testify?
Armstrong & Cernan: Yes sir, we have copies of what we said last time we were here, and we plan on restating it verbatim.
Chairman Hall: Excellent, that’s why we brought you back. Please proceed.“
This is where the empire strikes back. These are the big three in American space and they have been effectively walled off from the debate by a malicious Whitehouse and jealous but incompetent NASA leadership. Long gone are the craven recommendations the Augustine Committee.
What if after the Delta test of Orion, NASA wants to try Liberty as a launch vehicle? What then? Im sure that several test configurations will be tried. “Im watching the wheels go round and round!” (John Lennon)
Hi Space Colonizer –
While I have far different goals than you, you got a checklist for the throwing up and/or passing out part? Tip of the day: Remember to fall asleep sitting up, so you don’t drown in your own vomit.
“Bucky Larson” looks like a good laugh.
Reporter: “Is that your crash helmet?”
Astronaut Jimennez: “I hope not…”
Personally, I think we should listen to the pros, like the astronauts who themselves made these historic voyages. More seem to be on Armstrongs and Cernans side than anyone elses. I think where Buzz disagrees, is that he simply wants an active space program, no matter which direction it takes, either the Moon again or on to Mars. I hope these men can motivate our leaders into action…
In short, the only thing stopping us from going beyond LEO is HLV proponents saying we can only go if we use an HLV.
Well, that and the fact that we still don’t have a bleeping spacecraft. We’ve had the rockets for years already.
@ablastofhotair
“This is where the empire strikes back.”
You do know that in the Star Wars story line, the Empire were the bad guys, right? You’re referrng to the pro-SLS guys as the Empire. So guess what you’re implying they and their supporters (you among them) are? A classic case where the subconcious lets loose the truth. Your Freudian slip is showing.
These are the big three in American space and they have been effectively walled off from the debate by a malicious Whitehouse and jealous but incompetent NASA leadership.
Yes, they’ve been so effectively “walled off from the debate” that they’ve been testifying before Congress and publishing ignorant op-eds.
What a maroon.
 Dennis wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Personally, I think we should listen to the pros, like the astronauts who themselves made these historic voyages.”
To each their own..I don’t see what they have to contribute other then their opinions which are not all that significant policy wise. RGO
Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 11:39 am
“Well, that and the fact that we still don’t have a bleeping spacecraft.”
Yes. But even the overly-expensive-yet-limited MPCV can do something beyond LEO.
However as long as HLV proponents insist on spending HUGE amounts of NASA’s budget on building an unneeded rocket, we’ll never have the money to build exploration spacecraft and go anywhere.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“Here’s what I think will happen at the hearing …”
As Hillary Clinton pointed out a few years ago, everyone has the right to disagree with an Administration — including the Obama Administration.
Likewise, people have the right to have differing views about the direction of America’s space program.
If Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin repeat their point of view, so what? Are they doing anything different from some of the people who keep saying the same things here over and over again? That’s what one does when one is an advocate.
The problem with America’s space program today is that the Obama Administration won’t acknowledge any other points of view. If only the President’s “space summit” had been a genuine summit and a real meeting of the minds. Perhaps we would have a little more consensus and a lot less acrimony.
At least Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin are getting the chance to express their opinions on Capitol Hill. You can ignore their testimony if you wish. You can mock their ideas. But they have a right to be heard. Everyone has a right to be heard. That’s the American way (though not the “Chicago Way”).
Empire were the bad guys, right?
I rooted for Darth Vader over the liberal Jedi. The galaxy would have had order were it not for Jedi treachery.
amightywind wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 11:13 am
This is where the pigs in space strikes back. And get their pork. (fixed)
Windy exhaled the following:
“These are the big three in American space and they have been effectively walled off from the debate by a malicious Whitehouse and jealous but incompetent NASA leadership.”
Walled off? Griffin has been shooting his mouth off since he lost his job, with media coverage in print, web, television and radio. Cernan and Armstrong have already waded into the debate as well, not only in committee meetings but in print, web and radio media. Cernan has also made television appearances. How the hell is this being walled off from the debate?
Just because no one is listening to them or taking what they say to the streets does not mean they are walled off. The only thing that should be walled off is …
nevermind.
But they have a right to be heard.
Of course, and nobody was complaining about that. The complaint is that only these gentlemen have been asked to testify, no doubt because they have agreed in advance to say what the chairman wants to hear.
amightywind wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
I rooted for Darth Vader over the liberal Jedi. The galaxy would have had order were it not for Jedi treachery.
What a wonderful porthole into your mind. Certainly, this explains a lot. =)
@ William Mellberg wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“If Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin repeat their point of view, so what?”
Since you like the big boys I thought you’d like this one. I don’t think he has more than one degree though. Not sure if it is a problem? Anyway, here read and comprehend (<- this is the real important part though) if you don't mind.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html
@ amightywind wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“I rooted for Darth Vader over the liberal Jedi.”
It’s a problem for you to always root for the loser, now isn’t it?
William Melberg:
“As Hillary Clinton pointed out a few years ago, everyone has the right to disagree with an Administration — including the Obama Administration.
Likewise, people have the right to have differing views about the direction of America’s space program.
If Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin repeat their point of view, so what? Are they doing anything different from some of the people who keep saying the same things here over and over again? That’s what one does when one is an advocate.
The problem with America’s space program today is that the Obama Administration won’t acknowledge any other points of view. If only the President’s “space summit†had been a genuine summit and a real meeting of the minds. Perhaps we would have a little more consensus and a lot less acrimony.
At least Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin are getting the chance to express their opinions on Capitol Hill. You can ignore their testimony if you wish. You can mock their ideas. But they have a right to be heard. Everyone has a right to be heard. That’s the American way (though not the “Chicago Wayâ€).”
Agreed. That “space summit” was a joke. Everyone reading from the same song book. No contrary points of view, or alternative proposals allowed. The Administration was pretty shabby in the way it treated John Glenn when he made his views known, and they wrongly assumed that everyone would line up behind their original FY 11 proposal, they’d be hailed to the skies for being “new and innovative” and that a Democratic-controlled Congress would rubber-stamp their plans. WRONG. They didn’t expect the pushback, completely botched the rollout (as even Bolden himself has admitted), and has been in recovery mode ever since. The ONLY leadership shown on this comes from Congress, not 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Sure, POTUS was willing to have a “beer summit” (remember that?), but not willing to sit down with those who think his plans for NASA are wrong, listen to what they have to say, and be open to incorporating their ideas into the new program. Well, guess what? Congress will do that instead of the Administration. Don’t like that? Then write your Senators and Congresscritter to push for legislation that would steer NASA in the direction you want.
William Mellberg wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“The problem with America’s space program today is that the Obama Administration won’t acknowledge any other points of view.”
Oh please. Do you know how politically naive you sound? Show me an administration that isn’t interested in managing their message? You do realize that every President feels that they were elected to make decisions, and you just don’t like what Obama has decided. Big whoop.
“If only the President’s “space summit†had been a genuine summit and a real meeting of the minds.”
So you’re condemning him for not doing something that every other President has not done too? Gee, did you condemn Bush 43 for not holding a space summit too? Or summits don’t matter as long as he uttered the word “Moon”?
“At least Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin are getting the chance to express their opinions on Capitol Hill.”
Did they forget to mention something the last time they testified? “Ooh, ooh, Mr. Chairman, we thought of another non sequitor to say for why commercial aerospace companies can’t be trusted to build reliable spacecraft.”
I guess this just goes to show how little support there is for what Chairman Hall wants to do, since he can only trot out the same three people over, and over, and over again.
Notice that Chairman Hall doesn’t bring in anybody from the aerospace industry, nor does he bring in anybody that has actual experience with what we’re doing in space today, like one of the many astronauts that have lived and worked on the ISS.
Chairman Hall is not looking for perspectives on where we should be going, he is only looking for people that can join him in disagreeing with whatever the current administration is doing. It’s not personal, it’s just politics. And Armstrong and Cernan have been duped into being part of the circus. I feel sad for their tarnished legacies…
@Dennis wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 8:22 am
“I was just reading again, where SpaceX admitted to an anomaly in their Dragon flight.”
No surprise there. A corporation- a for profit enterprise, hiding a blemish from customers and contractors. Feet of clay, Elon. Tick-tock, tick-tock.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Reiterating a wise and correct position, with updated perspective/answers is a good thing for NA and GC. You do realize they have HSF experience pre-Apollo. Good perspective. Griffin, not so much.
@amightywind wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 11:13 am
“This is where the empire strikes back. These are the big three in American space…”
Hmmmm. Actually, ‘Two And A Half Men’ come to mind, not a Darth Vader vehicle. Unfortunately, Griffin only diminishes anything Cernan and Armstrong have to say. Mike’s done enough damage to HSF.
@William Mellberg wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“If Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin repeat their point of view, so what? Are they doing anything different from some of the people who keep saying the same things here over and over again? That’s what one does when one is an advocate.”
Precisely. Well said.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“I don’t see what they have to contribute other then their opinions which are not all that significant policy wise. RGO”
Context and perspective are important as Americans have short memories. A little more of that in other fields of endeavor might have avoided recent expensive mistakes like wars, economic meltdowns— and Ares.
i couldn’t care less what two geriatric have-beens and the utter failure that is mike griffin have to say. political theatre, nothing more, nothing less.
DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Context and perspective are important as Americans have short memories
You need both sides to have context. They should add Buzz since he has been actively looking into solutions of settlement and exploration. I guess they don’t want to bring balance.
When it comes to listening to the pros, that hardly ever happens. Look at our wars, where the military strategist are not generally listened to. So too, I doubt Armstrong, Cernan, and Griffen will be either. I do agree that we have the rockets that can deliver the hardware necessary for deep space exploration, already in existence. It is apparent that Congress believes NASA needs its own rocket to get the job done. Even Soyuz is being considered for a lunar mission in the near future, with a kicker stage launched separately.
Josh calling someone geriatric hasbeens, is not a good term. I am now elderly and do not like the word geriatric, and will come down on anyone using it. Keep in mind, you will get there too. Griffin is the only one who hasnt flown in space, while the others are not only familiar wth lunar missions, but also all orbital aspects of flight too. They can give valuable contributions to these hearings.
@John Malkin
The problem with Buzz is that he’s an eccentric who frequently changes his mind. So you never know which side of the issue he’s going to be on from day to day.
Armstrong and Cernan, however, have been pretty consistent in their support for a government space program and for returning to the Moon.
President Obama made his views clear:
“Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.†April 15, 2010.
Those are words that may go down in infamy!
Maybe Obama thought his attempt to privatize NASA’s manned space program would get a lot of support from Republicans. He thought wrong! I suspect that most Republicans still view NASA as a child of the Defense Department and critical to America’s national security.
political theatre, nothing more, nothing less
Not political theater, political combat. Obama has rolled out his heroes (Holdren, Musk, Garver) and failed. This hearing is a counterattack. We are fighting over the soul of NASA. Its 60’s radicals (and their descendants) versus America’s very best.
Even Soyuz is being considered for a lunar mission in the near future, with a kicker stage launched separately.
A bad idea since the 1960’s. What are the astronauts supposed to do at the moon, wedged immobile in a Soyuz? Wave?
In other news, the Liberty Rocket aka Ares I seems to be making a comeback, as I have always predicted it would.
First the unfunded part of the SAA with ATK is a joke since they have gotten a lot of money already for Ares I. I would love to know the profit margin ATK had on Ares I. Any investigative reporters out there that can find out? How is Liberty Human rated? Another joke. I just hope they have the same requirements as the other competitors in CCDev. And one more joke is reaching out internationally as a positive for Liberty. Basically ATK is saying Boeing can’t build a second stage.
Let the competition begin…
:Context and perspective are important as Americans have short memories. A little more of that in other fields of endeavor might have avoided recent expensive mistakes like wars, economic meltdowns— and Ares.”
So if congress would have held more meetings and brought in 3 supporters of Ares and no decenting voices we would have avoided expensive mistakes like Ares?
Let’s see we are redoing the expensive Ares v and we are bringing in 3 supporters of it and this will now help us avoid another expensive mistake like Ares?
Only in your world does this make sense.
@Matt Wiser wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“Sure, POTUS was willing to have a “beer summit†(remember that?), but not willing to sit down with those who think his plans for NASA are wrong, listen to what they have to say, and be open to incorporating their ideas into the new program.”
That’s because race relations, which has a direct bearing on his own life experience (and voter base), were more important to ‘President Ospocka’ than the future of HSF in out years beyond his own term(s) in office. He relies on his subordinates to hand him a white paper summary to peruse, draft a speech for a teleptrompter then deliver it. That’s all his speech at KSC was last year. It’s a pattern for other area as well.
NASA- at least HSF and the residual elements of the ‘space age’ had little impact in his formative years in his own life experience. He has no interest in it really. As a child in Hawaii, his memory of ‘spaceflight’ was limited to his grandfather taking him to see welcoming ceremonies of an Apollo crew returing from the moon. Most people would recall the details of such a historic encounter. He has never has; never indicated which one- and its not like there are a lot to choose from. He’s just young enough that it’s not really a part of his life experience whereas disco is. Dubya wasn’t much interested in it either until events post-Columbia forced it upon him– and like his father and his ’89 space initiative, he never followed through by fighting for adequate funding.
We have the rockets already. Want to go to the moon? Start building to fit into the fairings we have. Want to go to Mars? Start planning it to fit into the vehicles we’ve got. Want a new space station? Etc, etc. Or we can put it all off for anther decade or two or three and build one more “bigger” rocket and it all becomes even more distant than it already is. One of the few things Griffin ever got right was when he said “keep it relevant to the average American’s life-span”. SLS is not relevant.
It is apparent that Congress believes NASA needs its own rocket to get the job done.
That is not at all apparent. First of all it is mostly the special interests who would favour from continuing the status quo who care about this. The only exception I can think of would be Rohrabacher. Secondly, it is far more likely that those who do care about it merely say such things while in reality pork is all they care about.
When it comes to listening to the pros, that hardly ever happens.
Astronauts are not the obvious “pros” when it comes to space policy. Griffin is a pro, sure, but there are many others who haven’t been called to justify. The complaint wasn’t that these gentlemen are allowed to give their opinion, but that no one else is. And the real reason Armstrong and Cernan will be there must be to lend celebrity support to what Hall wants.
amightywind wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“…versus America’s very best”
The only three people that Chairman Hall could round up to support his views are two retirees and a former NASA Administrator that a bi-partisan Congress rebuked when they canceled his signature program. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Chairman.
Chairman Hall missed all of America’s current best and brightest that are still working in aerospace, as well as those that have been involved with building America’s largest and most challenging foothold in space.
What’s Hall’s goal – create a retirement community on the Moon for old Apollo astronauts? Considering the witness list, nothing else makes sense.
@ amightywind wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“Not political theater, political combat.”
Whatever…
“Obama has rolled out his heroes (Holdren, Musk, Garver) and failed.”
In what way? As I see it all that the WH wanted has been funded or defunded. Not the expected extent. Nonetheless.
“This hearing is a counterattack.”
A counter attack? Of what?
“We are fighting over the soul of NASA.”
The soul of NASA? SLS and MPCV? You give very little credit to NASA then.
“Its 60′s radicals (and their descendants) versus America’s very best.”
So people are going to take to the streets this time? They’ll throw stones and things. And all that over SLS and MPCV? Really?
“A bad idea since the 1960′s. What are the astronauts supposed to do at the moon, wedged immobile in a Soyuz? Wave?”
Yes. Just like in the MPCV except it’s smaller and cheaper.
“In other news, the Liberty Rocket aka Ares I seems to be making a comeback, as I have always predicted it would.”
Nope. Nothing of the sort. Just a gesture of good will to the losers.
Dennis wrote:
“Even Soyuz is being considered for a lunar mission in the near future, with a kicker stage launched separately.”
Which would be repeating the later Zond missions (1967-1970). They were not exactly stellar successes. You might recall that there were some re-entry problems. As for finally flying humans in a Zond … with just a Descent Module, the passenger quarters would be rather cramped for the week-long voyage (to say the least). But perhaps the new plan would include a version of the Soyuz Orbital Module to make the trip a little more comfortable. And it certainly would be quite an adventure for the two passengers taking a trip around the Moon — and seeing the lunar surface relatively up close and personal from 1,200 miles away. It’d be pretty much right out of Jules Verne. I wish I could afford the $100,000 ticket price.
John Malkin wrote:
First the unfunded part of the SAA with ATK is a joke since they have gotten a lot of money already for Ares I.
If you read ATK’s press release, it quotes ATK vice-president Kent Rominger as saying:
“Now that we are working closely with NASA, we will also look for other funding sources to further speed the development of Liberty,” said Rominger.
I took “other funding sources” to mean taxpayer money.
Watching the press conference, it’s pretty clear ATK hopes to get some of that CCDev seed money that up until now has gone to crew vehicles.
I can’t imagine anyone wanting to fly a crew vehicle atop a solid rocket motor. To my knowledge, no crew vehicle in history has ever relied solely on a solid rocket motor as a first stage.
Rominger said at the press conference that ATK is courting the three CCDev participants planning to fly on the Atlas V, and they might seek customers from other nations.
Wearing my Machiavellian hat for a moment (I got it on eBay), I have to wonder if NASA went along with this as a sop for the Utah congressional delegation to stop them from trying to cut the CCDev budget. NASA is unlikely to buy a ride on a solid rocket vehicle (unless Congress orders them to do so), so from there perspective it’s cheap insurance against Congressional porkery.
Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan are really test pilots. If we need advice 1960s methods for testing aerospace vehicles, then they probably have something to contribute. Otherwise, they are just celebrities with opinions.
Mike Griffin, on the other hand, might actually be useful. He has experience running space programs into the ground. We should listen to him and do the opposite of whatever he says.
@ DSCA:
“…only 12 have flown spacecraft down to and back from the lunar surface. Congress will hear from the first and last to date. Wise perspective. That experienced commentary carries more weight than any LEO perspective shuttle astronauts could provide– and besides, both Armstrong and Cernan have LEO flight experience if they need to discuss it.”
@ Dennis
“Personally, I think we should listen to the pros, like the astronauts who themselves made these historic voyages.”
Fighter pilots (which many of these guys were) are generally considered heroic. But like most others in the military, they execute policy, they don’t make it.
Why should NASA astronauts be considered any different?
@ Dennis:
“When it comes to listening to the pros, that hardly ever happens. Look at our wars, where the military strategist are not generally listened to. So too, I doubt Armstrong, Cernan, ”
See above. These gentlemen were not strategists, they were on the ‘front line,’ as it were..Again, they executed policy, they didn’t make it, and had limited input on the hardware used to execute it. Apollo architecture (not to mention the decision to do *anything*) was chosen somewhere above them.
“It is apparent that Congress believes NASA needs its own rocket to get the job done.”
Tell Congress that if NASA buys an EELV launch, it’s effectively ‘their’ rocket.
” Even Soyuz is being considered for a lunar mission in the near future, with a kicker stage launched separately.”
And if it happens:
1: It’ll be primarily for commercial purposes, at about $150 million USD per seat (‘but, but, but…commercial will never take us beyond LEO!’).
and…
2: Yes, you’re absolutely right. ‘launched separately.’ Say it with me, ‘Orbital assembly.’ Not different in principle from the Gemini missions that went as far as 850 miles up, after docking with a separately launched Agena, not by using a bigger Titan,
The Russians are not going to, do not need to resurrect N-1 or Energia to do this.
There’s your sign…
@Frank Glover wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
“Fighter pilots (which many of these guys were) are generally considered heroic. But like most others in the military, they execute policy, they don’t make it.”
In fact, they’re hunters. And when moved into management positions, they do , in fact, influence how policy is made when they are put into decisionmaking positions of ascertaining how said policy is carried out. See Slayton, Shepard, Truly and of late, Bolden, for details.
“I can’t imagine anyone wanting to fly a crew vehicle atop a solid rocket motor.”
It’s a lousy concept. But if it ends up the only ride outta town, they’ll be lined up to fly.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
“And the witnesses are the ones the Administration has been treating with contempt.”
You keep making this silly statement, but it’s all in your head.
Only those that are “Moon First” proponents feel that Armstrong and Cernan have any relevant comments on a space program that is 40 years beyond what they experienced.
But there is no funded Moon program, so why are their viewpoints more informed than current astronauts on where we’re at today with our current space systems? Do they know anything about the 90’s era technology that was used to build the ISS? Do they know anything about 21st century commercial space vehicles? Have they trained with the Russians, ESA or JAXA?
Why not call Ken Bowersox? Navy test pilot like Armstrong, and Bowersox flew the Shuttle, commanded a tour of the ISS, and had to return to Earth on a Soyuz after Columbia crashed. Just like Armstrong, he too has been inducted into the Astronaut Hall of Fame, and now he is VP of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance at SpaceX.
Why wouldn’t Chairman Hall call Bowersox? The likely reason is because he doesn’t fit the political narrative that Hall wants to get across.
And when is Hall going to call Musk? You were gleefully looking forward to Musk getting grilled in front of the House Space Committee. Since Hall is repeating his guest list, one has to wonder if he’s chickening out…
@Rhyolite
“Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan are really test pilots. If we need advice 1960s methods for testing aerospace vehicles, then they probably have something to contribute. Otherwise, they are just celebrities with opinions.
Mike Griffin, on the other hand, might actually be useful. He has experience running space programs into the ground. We should listen to him and do the opposite of whatever he says.”
NASA’s focus is supposed to be on manned beyond LEO missions. And Armstrong and Cernan are two of the extremely few human beings ever to travel beyond Earth orbit. In fact, Cernan did it twice. So I trust their opinion a lot more than I would Obama’s science adviser, Holdren.
Frank Glover wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
well said. what is entertaining is that a careful analysis of the Chinese program seems to indicate that what they are “most” interested in is learning on orbit automated assembly of different vehicle pieces. Go look at their upcoming list of missions and that is precisely what they are trying to put together…
what would that tell us if we were as they say on Blues Clues…”in our thinking chair”
Robert G. Oler
called to justify
Heh, I meant “called to testify”.
According to the plan, the Soyuz would have an additional livng module giving it much more room that present now. It was originally intended for lunar flights, so why not. I believe they said that possbly two test flights prior to any commercial missions would be carried out. I wonder if one of those would be manned with cosmonauts?
Marcel F. Williams wrote:
NASA’s focus is supposed to be on manned beyond LEO missions.
Says who? It’s nowhere in the National Aeronautics and Space Act.
Don’t make things up.
@Coastal Ron
“And when is Hall going to call Musk? You were gleefully looking forward to Musk getting grilled in front of the House Space Committee. Since Hall is repeating his guest list, one has to wonder if he’s chickening out…”
Because Hall has made this proclamation multiple times since assuming the committee chairmanship, it has appeared to me for sometime that by just claiming he thinks Musk needs to be called up accomplishes his goals more effectively than actually doing so. That way he gets to give the impression that Musk is up to something untoward without the risk of Hall’s own position being exposed during an actually testimony by Musk. Thus we can continue to expect him to say he will call Musk, but never actually do it. Hall might possibly actually do so if another congressional representative calls his bluff and publicly asks him, “Hey, you keep saying you’re going to do this, but you never do. When are you going to actually do it?”
Hall’s tactic is similar to one Sen. Shelby tried to use to keep Ares I going. He threatened multiple times that he was going to have the Inspector General look into the members of the Augustine Commission because he claimed that he had “evidence” that several of the members were “paid lobbyists” for companies that wanted to sell NASA rides to the ISS. He appears to have been hoping (just as Hall is) that just the claim of miscreance would spread FUD among his fellow politicians and the public to his advantage when it came time for a vote on the issue . Of course, if there were actually any real evidence of his claims, he would have followed his threat with action because it would have discredited the Augustine Report, which was the administration’s main justification for cancelling Ares I and Constellation as a whole.
Typical tactics of anti-commercial crew politicians.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
John Malkin wrote:
First the unfunded part of the SAA with ATK is a joke since they have gotten a lot of money already for Ares I.
If you read ATK’s press release, it quotes ATK vice-president Kent Rominger as saying:
“Now that we are working closely with NASA, we will also look for other funding sources to further speed the development of Liberty,†said Rominger.
I read it and I watched the press conference.
An at least 4 to 6 times the word unfunded was brought up. I feel this is total misdirection since at some point it will be funded. This unfunded part is only for Preliminary Design Review as stated in the press release. ESA could be another funding source since half the rocket is indirectly ESA. They have the same chance as everyone else to get the human LEO customers (corporations, universities/research centers, corporate, private citizens [tourist]) but they will need to compete on cost and features with safety being the most important feature. So I say let them compete. Just don’t take my money and give me nothing. Also don’t pretend you are doing me any favors. I would hope a 4.8 billion dollar company can afford to fund a Preliminary Design Review.
Liberty has cost us billions when it was called Ares I. Now changing the second to stage to a foreign company will fix everything. At least KSC will have 300 new “jobsâ€.
And one more thing on safety, let’s just hope Astrium loads the right software.
“NASA’s focus is supposed to be on manned beyond LEO missions.”
No, it’s not.
“And Armstrong and Cernan are two of the extremely few human beings ever to travel beyond Earth orbit. In fact, Cernan did it twice. So I trust their opinion a lot more than I would Obama’s science adviser, Holdren.”
That’s like asking the pilot of the Enola Gay how the Manhattan project should be run. Paul Tibbets might have been at the pointy end of the project but if you want to learn how project should be run you need to talk to Vannevar Bush, Leslie Groves, and Robert Oppenheimer.
Ron; That will be a future hearing. This one is about NASA HSF in general, and probably more specifically, BEO missions. But I am looking forward to Musk getting the grilling he richly deserves on The Hill. How’s that retirement condo on Mars going, My Lord? The clock’s ticking….
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“This one is about NASA HSF in general, and probably more specifically, BEO missions.”
What are they going to say that they didn’t say last time?
See that’s the thing Matt, Hall doesn’t have anyone else that he can have testify that will support his political narrative. Armstrong and Cernan are just figureheads being trotted out to say what they are told, and they probably won’t even vary the script from the last time.
And again, Armstrong and Cernan are four decades removed from the technology, techniques and knowledge of today. They have no clue about flying Shuttle, building, working and living on a space station, and building 21st century spacecraft.
And Griffin? Congress rebuked his legacy program (Constellation) because of lousy decisions and lousy management, and they are getting ready to cancel another of the programs that he mismanaged (JWST). Pray tell, what could he say that would be believed? Safe, Simple and Soon part 2?
The Republican Chairman invited him because Griffin trashes Obama, plain and simple. Not because Griffin has any ideas worth listening to. As always, it’s political, and not meant to advance our ability to do space exploration.
John Malkin wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 11:36 am
ESA doesn’t have the money for this and they don’t need Liberty because they already have a much better rocket.
@Coastal Ron
Theres’s no use in trying to talk to Wiser at all. He just conveniently ignores any evidence that goes counter to his preconceived beliefs. Like he completely ignores the fact that Hall won’t call Musk to testify, in the same manner that Hall is afraid to call on anyone else on the commercial side at the same time he has Armstrong, Cernan etc testify.
He completely ignores my earlier point.
“Because Hall has made this proclamation multiple times since assuming the committee chairmanship, it has appeared to me for sometime that by just claiming he thinks Musk needs to be called up accomplishes his goals more effectively than actually doing so. That way he gets to give the impression that Musk is up to something untoward without the risk of Hall’s own position being exposed during an actually testimony by Musk. Thus we can continue to expect him to say he will call Musk, but never actually do it.”
I hope NASA can survive the True Believers in what I call the SCOSNSQ (Sacred Church of the Old Style NASA Status Quo) who take everything High Priest Hall, Saint Armstrong, Saint Cernan, etc. say at face value, unquestioningly.
“But I am looking forward to Musk getting the grilling he richly deserves on The Hill.”
So an American goes out and builds a company, flies successfully, and begins to challenge Russian and Chinese on price…obviously he needs to be grilled by congress. What was he thinking! Do you ever stop to wonder why congress has a 15% approval rating?
Das Boese wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
“ESA doesn’t have the money for this and they don’t need Liberty because they already have a much better rocket.”
That’s the thing I think most people miss – Ariane 5 has the same capacity to LEO that Liberty is supposed to have, so why would anyone choose the Liberty over the Ariane 5?
I think Astrium must be going along with this because they think someone (ATK or NASA) will pay them to do engine work that will be useful for something they would like to do in the future, but otherwise don’t have the budget. They certainly would not be partnering up with ATK if it meant they would lose Ariane 5 launch business, so that’s the only thing that I can think of.
How’s that retirement condo on Mars going, My Lord?
What a stupid question. He doesn’t plan to retire for decades. Why would he need to be working on it now, other than doing what he’s doing — reducing the cost of access to space? And I continue to find it hilarious that the only people who idiotically call him a “lord” are the people who fantasize that others see him that way.