Congress, NASA

House hearing revisits commercial crew concerns; Mars makes a cameo

A few hours after NASA administrator Charles Bolden defended the agency’s fiscal year 2013 budget request before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday, he did the same on other side of Capitol Hill at a hearing of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. The rhetoric at the House hearing wasn’t nearly as heated as the Senate hearing, where Bolden and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison engaged in an extended debate, but commercial crew and SLS/Orion funding was again a key theme, with a number of committee members expressing skepticism about the administration’s proposal of nearly $830M for commercial crew.

“I look at every program in your budget and it seems to take a hit, except for the commercial crew,” Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) said to Bolden at one point in the nearly two-hour hearing. “I wonder if you can tell me how we can expect support on this committee for an 104% increase when you have yet to provide to us, despite being asked numerous times, frankly, General, a credible cost and schedule estimate that justifies an annual funding stream.”

“We basically have to take it on faith that your budget requests are neither too small or too large,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the ranking member of the committee, said in her opening statement in regards to commercial crew, “and that these vehicles will show up before it is too late for them to provide more than a year or two of support for the International Space Station.” She was also skeptical that these vehicles would be able to provide crew transportation services less expensively than Soyuz vehicles, or open up new markets beyond space tourism. “I can’t justify to my constituents the expenditure of their tax dollars so that the super-rich can have a joyride.”

Bolden made a number of the same comments about commercial crew as he did in the Senate in the morning, including that the requested funding was vital to keep the program on schedule for beginning transportation services in 2017 and that safety was not being compromised by using Space Act Agreements (SAAs) versus FAR-based contracts. In response to another question about the use of SAAs from Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), Bolden said that if NASA had stuck to the agency’s original plan to use more conventional contracts for the third round of the program, NASA would have been able to select only one contractor given the limited funding available in FY2012, and “the subsequent costs on that contract would, I think, have been—I would not have been able to afford it.”

While commercial crew got considerable attention at the hearing, the proposed cuts to NASA’s planetary science programs cut only a modest amount of attention, but even that was more than what the Senate devoted to the topic earlier in the day. “NASA, seemingly in good faith, agreed in 2009 to join forces with the European Space Agency [on ExoMars], but with the unveiling of the 2013 budget, NASA has reneged on its commitment,” Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the committee’s chairman, said in his opening statement. “There’s no doubt in my mind that NASA’s decision to withdraw from ExoMars seriously imperils the ability of ESA to keep moving forward with this program and also imperils NASA’s ability to be viewed as a trustworthy partner on any future collaborations.”

Beyond statements by Hall and Johnson in their opening statements, the topic of NASA’s withdrawal in ExoMars came up only rarely in the hearing. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) mentioned it late in the hearing, expressing concerns about international cooperation. “What’s this going to do to our ability to be reliable partners?” he asked Bolden. The administrator responded that international cooperation remained important. “We have not stepped away from our European friends,” he said, discussing the ongoing restructuring of the agency’s Mars exploration program.

On one other topic, China, Bolden revealed in the hearing that he has already talked with Rep. Frank Wolf about his concerns regarding potential Chinese participation in the ISS that he expressed in a letter to the administrator earlier this week. “Congressman Wolf and I had a long conversation yesterday,” he said in response to a question from Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL). “That meeting has been had and he considered that adequate response to his letter.”

46 comments to House hearing revisits commercial crew concerns; Mars makes a cameo

  • amightywind

    “I can’t justify to my constituents the expenditure of their tax dollars so that the super-rich can have a joyride.”

    Priceless. The 2017 date is obviously too late to justify spending $ billions on ISS servicing. 5 years! I though you internet entrepreneurs were fast? Clearly the CCDev2 program must be down selected and the schedule accelerated. It’s time to drop concerns about offending major Obama donors like Musk and Bezos. In the meantime it is fun to watch Bolden squirm in denial.

    …also imperils NASA’s ability to be viewed as a trustworthy partner on any future collaborations.

    Obama really stuck it to Europe on this one. How do you guys over there like him now that you’ve been double crossed?

  • Michael from Iowa

    “I can’t justify to my constituents the expenditure of their tax dollars so that the super-rich can have a joyride.”
    Oh come on!! Are you freaking kidding me with this?

  • vulture4

    The ISS was originally conceived as a permanent foothold in space, not a temporary footstep. If American lacks the money to support LEO operations and the foresight to develop less expensive forms of access, then we certainly don’t have the resources or vision for sustained settlement of the moon and Mars.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “I can’t justify to my constituents the expenditure of their tax dollars so that the super-rich can have a joyride.”

    Since when are NASA astronauts “super-rich”?

    Is it a habit of yours to parrot stupidity?

    “The 2017 date is obviously too late to justify spending $ billions on ISS servicing.”

    The U.S. taxpayer is on the hook to spend billions on ISS servicing through 2020 regardless. It’s just a matter of whether those billions are spent in the US on US companies and US workers or whether certain members of Congress would prefer to ship billions of US taxpayer dollars to Russia, RSA, and Korolev.

    “I though you internet entrepreneurs were fast?”

    Compared to what? Ares I/Orion? Despite having a half-decade head start on commercial crew, that program slipped year-for-year and wasn’t going to achieve a crewed flight before 2017 (more likely 2019 per Augustine) before it was cancelled. SLS/MPCV? That program has already slipped its uncrewed flight tests year-for-year and is not getting to a crewed flight until 2021, at the earliest.

    The internet entrepreneurs (and Boeing and Sierra Nevada) are fast compared to the NASA human space flight status quo.

    “It’s time to drop concerns about offending major Obama donors like Musk and Bezos.”

    Are you kidding?

    In 2011 alone, Musk gave $15K to the National Republican Congressional Committee, $5K to the (Republican) Majority Committee PAC, $10K to Kevin McCarthy for Congress and the McCarthy Victory Fund (a Republican), $5K to the Committee to Re-Elect Congressman Roh (another Republican), and $1K to the Scott Brown for Senate Committee (another Republican).

    Bezos does not make contributions to candidates or political committees (at least at the national level).

    “Obama really stuck it to Europe on this one. How do you guys over there like him now that you’ve been double crossed?”

    Well, given that the European space agencies are refusing to participate in the much more expensive MPCV, they probably think that they’ve won.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Here’s the bottom line: You fund commercial crew and you get back US indigenous human space flight by 2017 plus redundant, proven launch systems. You defund everything and focus on Orion/SLS and you get back US indigenous human space flight by 2020 with a n LV that needs time to be entirely proven, no immediate destination due to the length of time it will take to build BEO propulsion modules and payloads as well as a HSF infrastructure that has been crippled by a decade-long stand-down. That’s with or without ISS, so no screaming about dumping the only ongoing bit of US human space flight in the Pacific as if that’s a Panacea for all your problems

    Bottom line. Please make your choice but no buyer’s remorse please

  • MrEarl

    I think we all saw this coming.
    Both the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat, have supported a SDHLV/SLS in the past and so far it looks like it will continue in the future. I can understand congress’s skepticism of Gen. Bolden and the administration given the obstacles and “slow walking” they have done in the pass in reference to SLS and MPCV.
    I have come to believe that it’s really Holdren who is behind these obstacles and games being played with budget proposals.
    It is a little troubling that Commercial Crew is being singled out as it is, but when a program receives a 104% budget increase over the previous year it’s going to attract attention. I’m surprised Bolden didn’t defend the increase better by pointing out money going to American companies is always better than money going to foreign companies and reminding congress that Russia has had their own problems with spacecraft the past year that made NASA consider abandoning and possibly losing the ISS. He should have also pointed out that the US and the international partners are looking into extending the ISS to 2028 and that commercial crew capabilities will be a very important consideration in doing that.

    It was JWST that has practically gutted planetary science. We should at least continue the planning phases for new planetary expeditions and keep our promise to ESA to participate in the ExoMars program.
    So what it comes down to is that NASA’s budget is short ~$500 million; ~$300m for SLS/MPCV (which it looks like congress will try to get one way or another) and ~$200m for planetary science.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “So what it comes down to is that NASA’s budget is short ~$500 million; ~$300m for SLS/MPCV (which it looks like congress will try to get one way or another)”

    SLS/MPCV is not short $300M. Congress can’t do basic math:

    “NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was up on the Hill today for back to back meetings of House and Senate committees that oversee his budget. Based on the (predictable and utterly depressing) feedback he received, its clear that key members of Congress failed Math 101 (and a few other courses) in college. It’s the only real explanation for many of their inane utterances.

    The Great Budget Raid That Wasn’t (So Big): Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison kept complaining that the proposed budget cuts spending on the Space Launch System and Orion by $300 million in favor of funding commercial crew. In fact, the cut to the combined programs is roughly half that amount. The confusion apparently results from a new accounting arrangement that separates the ground infrastructure costs from vehicle development. (This arrangement was demanded by Congress in the last budget.)

    NASA has shifted more money to ground infrastructure to prepare for unmanned tests in 2014 and 2017 and slowed down development of Orion to match the slower pace of SLS. But, the cut is not nearly as bad as Hutchison is alleging. And we’re in a tight fiscal environment.”

    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/03/07/congress-flunk-math-101-update-no-2703843/

  • E.P. Grondine

    I don’t think the ESA budget is all that great shape either.

    What I expect is that NASA’s next Mars probe will be a better rover going up Valles Marineris.

  • amightywind

    If American lacks the money to support LEO operations and the foresight to develop less expensive forms of access, then we certainly don’t have the resources or vision for sustained settlement of the moon and Mars.

    You present a false choice, as usual. America can afford a space station, just not one that costs $3 billion in perpetuity. As a follow on to ISS we can cheaply loft a modest Bigelow station. The concepts are reasonable. It might even have a business case for space tourism. It would give your beloved CCDev2 somewhere to go after 2020. As a nation we have made a mess of the the ‘beyond shuttle strategy’. Will we also fail to plan beyond ISS? Seems so.

    The U.S. taxpayer is on the hook to spend billions on ISS servicing through 2020 regardless.

    Sounds like an entitlement. That’s one way to insure funding.

    That program has already slipped its uncrewed flight tests year-for-year

    Bolden and his cabal have been slow walking the project since they took office. Expect the project to continue to slip until it is competently managed.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the ranking member of the committee, said in her opening statement in regards to commercial crew>>

    She along with Wolf and some others are completely well “low information”…RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ March 8th, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Expect the project [SLS] to continue to slip until it is competently managed.

    Holy moley do you have a short memory. Under the great leadership of Michael Griffin, and before Obama took office, the Constellation program was not only going way over budget, but going way off schedule too. So I would imagine that you’ll renew your call for Griffin to be reinstated as NASA Administrator?

    And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, that regardless what people’s opinions may be about Bolden, he has brought better program management to NASA, which means more believable budgets and schedules. If that is his only legacy, it will be a good one.

  • @Mr Earl
    “Both the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat, have supported a SDHLV/SLS in the past and so far it looks like it will continue in the future..
    For pork for their constituencies, not because it is the most economical, quickest, and most efficient way to go BEO. Screw what’s best for the nation’s future in space – they just don’t give a rip about that. If we have to rely on the Russians longer so they can have their pork by robbing it from Commercial to give to SLS, so be it.

  • It is a little troubling that Commercial Crew is being singled out as it is, but when a program receives a 104% budget increase over the previous year it’s going to attract attention.

    When the previous year’s needed and reasonable request is slashed by half, it shouldn’t be surprising when such a request is repeated, because the need hasn’t gone away, and yes, that means a doubling of the previous year’s budget. This isn’t rocket science.

  • amightywind

    What I expect is that NASA’s next Mars probe will be a better rover going up Valles Marineris.

    Not likely. Looks like a sop to the geophysicists. Heat flow? Terrific. That’ll thrill the school kids. For gosh sakes guys. Build and launch another MSL. The marginal cost has to be dramatically less than the first. How about more of these?

  • MrEarl

    DBN: “SLS/MPCV? That program has already slipped its uncrewed flight tests year-for-year and is not getting to a crewed flight until 2021, at the earliest.”

    Not true. Since the project was officially announced in Sept of 2011,it has consistently targeted Dec 17th, 2017 for the first unmanned flight. Under a “worse case” scenario the first crewed flight was announced as sometime in 2021. NASA is targeting 2019 as the timeframe for the first crewed flight.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    This isn’t rocket science…”

    It’s not free enterprise, either. It’s socialism, Comrade Simberg, and you’re embracing it. The place for commercial space to source funding is the private capital markets, NOT the United States Treasury, especially with existing government space programs, competing for dwindling resources, face cuts in order to fund LEO operations, which are a ticket to no place.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “Sounds like an entitlement.”

    No, it’s an intergovernmental agreement between 15 nations. For better or worse, there are commitments that the US government is bound to uphold. It’s just a question of whether we do it efficiently and safely with U.S. vehicles, companies, and workers, or whether we sends taxpayer dollars to Russia for a single-string solution that’s probably inadvertently helping arm Assad.

    “Bolden and his cabal have been slow walking the project since they took office. Expect the project to continue to slip until it is competently managed.”

    It’s not a matter of enthusiasm. Griffin and his cabal didn’t have any better luck with the smaller and less complex Ares I and Orion projects, which also slipped year-for-year. Shuttle systems are fundamentally too costly for the available NASA budget if we want to have any resources left over to do more than go back and forth to Earth orbit.

    The fact that the SLS/MPCV schedule has already slipped a year in its first year of existence, the fact that SLS/MPCV spending has to be flatlined to fit within NASA’s budget, the fact that the Europeans don’t want to participate, and the fact that the porkers in Congress are whining about a lousy 5-6% reduction in a three billion dollar budget tells us a lot about the affordability and schedule of SLS/MPCV going forward. It’s going to slip no matter who’s in charge.

  • Doug Lassiter

    amightywind wrote @ March 8th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
    “Heat flow? Terrific. That’ll thrill the school kids.”

    Well, if this is about thrilling school kids, there are far more economical ways to do it. You want *another* picture of hills, sand, and rock outcroppings? That’s sort of like the idea that you can thrill school kids with *another* picture of a human being in a space suit saluting an American flag on the Moon. Obama was right about that. We’ve been there before. But he was right only to the extent that it’s just about being there. The “inspiration” argument is a pretty lame one, and really only goes so far. This deserves an essay of it’s own, but the inspiration the American public got out of Apollo wasn’t that we landed on the Moon, but that we beat the pants off the USSR.

    That being said, another MSL (at least as a generic architecture) sounds like a sensible strategy, though the equipment you’d like to have on it is going to be a lot better defined after MSL has been operating for a few years. Yes, it has to have new capabilities. The “let’s just make a copy and drive around somewhere else” argument isn’t a particularly strong one.

  • amightywind

    there are commitments that the US government is bound to uphold.

    Ya mean like ExoMars? All the way to the poor house? No. Agreements that are bad for US interests should be broken without hesitation. We’ve allowed our ‘partners’ to freeload on ISS long enough.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “Not true. Since the project was officially announced in Sept of 2011,it has consistently targeted Dec 17th, 2017 for the first unmanned flight.”

    The requirement in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act is 2016. In their very first year, SLS and MPCV have fallen a year behind the legislative requirement.

    Moreover, even without SLS, the first flight of MPCV (on a Delta IV) has slipped from 2013 to 2014.

    “Under a ‘worse case’ scenario the first crewed flight was announced as sometime in 2021.”

    It’s going to be much worse than 2021.

    To fit within NASA’s topline budget, SLS/MPCV spending is flat over multiple years. That’s an incredibly inefficient way to develop anything. The last NASA human space flight project that was held to a flat spending profile was ISS. And it took a quarter-century to complete.

    On top of that, NASA was betting on the Europeans to pick up the tab for MPCV’s propulsion module. The Europeans have turned NASA down. If MPCV has to pay for that propulsion module out of its own pocket (as it should), that’s going to slip MPCV’s schedule further.

    On top of that, the usual congressional porkers are screaming bloody murder over a lousy 5-6% reduction in the SLS/MPCV FY13 budget. If they’re pressuring NASA that strongly to spread the pork around, instead of spending the SLS/MPCV budget as efficiently as possible, that’s going to slip the schedule even further.

    And just logically, it doesn’t make sense that if NASA couldn’t develop a single-configuration, single-stick, two-engined, Shuttle-derived intermediate-lift rocket and capsule for more funding than SLS/MPCV without slipping the schedule year-for-year for a half-decade, then NASA is not going to be able to develop a multiple-configuration, three-stick, six-engined, Shuttle-derived, heavy-lift rocket and capsule with less funding than Ares I/Orion without slipping year-for-year for years to come.

  • DCSCA

    “I can’t justify to my constituents the expenditure of their tax dollars so that the super-rich can have a joyride.”

    Precisely.

    Master Musk wants to socialize the risk on the many in an attenpt to benefit a select few as private caputal sources remain skeptical of buying into his plans.

    Master Musk can cut a personal check to fund SpaceX or borrow against his own assets and does not need to keep trying to tap the Treasury, which has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends– especially when the U.S. already has several space programs, civil and military, to fund with dwindling resources.

    Ubermillionaires have a pattern of using other people’s money. Sir Willard of Romney won’t even invest in himself but rather beg others to fund his campaign.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “Ya mean like ExoMars?”

    ExoMars and ISS aren’t in the same ballpark in terms of either their maturity or the level of resources that other nations have put into them.

    I wouldn’t have done ISS either, but that horse left the barn a decade and a half ago. It’s a useless policy proposal to suggest that the U.S. can pull of ISS. We can’t and won’t. It’s just a matter of whether we fulfill our obligations using US or Russian vehicles.

  • Aberwys

    Go ExoMars! PDR level technology, ready for a flight !

  • Master Musk wants to socialize the risk on the many in an attenpt to benefit a select few as private caputal sources remain skeptical of buying into his plans.

    No matter how often you repeat this insanity, it remains untrue. He has adequate private investment to carry out his plans. The only reason that he is getting (a trivial amount, compared to boondoggles like SLS and Orion) government funding is because NASA needs his company’s services sooner than they will be available under his commercial business plan.

  • Vladislaw

    A might blast of hot Air wrote:

    “America can afford a space station, just not one that costs $3 billion in perpetuity”

    You just said that the ISS was only going to be operational until 2020, so by your own reasoning it would not be in perpetuity, only until 2020.

    America collects somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 trillion dollars a year in taxes, fees and royalties etc, to say American can not afford 3 billion a year for something, yes, even in perpetuity is pretty silly don’t you think? Oh … that’s right, I forgot, you don’t.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ March 8th, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Master Musk can cut a personal check to fund SpaceX or borrow against his own assets and does not need to keep trying to tap the Treasury…

    Not having any business experience really stops you from having intelligent conversations on this subject.

    In the real business world customers that have unique requirements are often required to pre-fund their work. In the realm of government contracting that is why “progress payments” and “cost-plus contracts” exist, because no one – not Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK, etc. – would take risks on large programs. Say what you want about being risk-averse, but the companies that weren’t either went out of business or were gobbled up by the three I just mentioned. That’s business evolution in action.

    Such is the case with transporting crew to the ISS, which Congress has mandated is to be done by commercial firms. However as the recent hearings have pointed out, because no commercial companies have ever transported government personnel to space, no one knows what the ultimate requirements will be, only that NASA and the FAA will have a major say in approving crew transportation systems.

    So until you can find, in your subterranean bookwork fashion, a requirements document that identifies ALL of the government requirements for transporting government personnel to space, as well as the funding mechanism for paying for the service, you’re just making an ass of yourself every time you talk about “private capital markets” and other such nonsense. No company, including companies the size and financial heft of Boeing, is going to risk their company on an undefined & unfunded government requirement.

    And you folks can participate at home by finding a government contracts professional or a local VC and ask them if their company would invest 100% of the upfront costs for a government need that has no official appropriation from Congress and doesn’t have a complete set of technical & regulatory requirements?

    You’ll hear a lot of laughing, as they’ll say anyone would be nuts to do it – which is why no one listens to DCSCA for advice on this subject…

  • Googaw

    vulture4: “If American lacks the money to support LEO operations and the foresight to develop less expensive forms of access, then we certainly don’t have the resources or vision for sustained settlement of the moon and Mars.”

    Oh my. You’re expecting NASA and its supporters to engage in economic reasoning? Good luck with that!

  • well

    The fix seems to be in on CC this year. Congress appears to not understand anything about it and is intent on remaining ignorant. Now they even think paying the Russians is a good deal? Oh boy. Someone has been whispering in some ears and earning their lobbying paycheck.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ March 8th, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    ROFLMAO- Congress mandats a lot of things and often never allocates funding. Once again you’re going the long way ’round and be crankin’ to crank. Another contractor/sub-contactor hungering for crumbs from a government gig. You’ve never operated in the private sector in your life.

    Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    ‘He has adequate private investment to carry out his plans.’ His plans are not America’s plans and BTW, no he doesn’t- otherwise he’d not keep attempting to weasel subsidies from the Treasury. ‘NASA needs his company’s services.’ No it doesnt. It was operating fine before shuttle ended and is meeting requirements w/Soyuz and Progress as the ISS winds down. And w/o the ISS, LEO commercial HSF & cargo operation is DOA. It’s past planning; an obsuse relic in the Age of Austerity. .

  • DCSCA

    “It’s a useless policy proposal to suggest that the U.S. can pull [out] of ISS. We can’t and won’t.” We can and will if we cannot pay for it or have to keep borrowing. Its just throwing good money after bad. The U.S. can keep doing ‘work to rule’ operations and meeting minimal contractual obligations– possibly subcontract/sublet…. or sell off its stake. Lots of ‘outs’ can be put on the table- especially in the age of austery with the country gonig broke. It’s not a justifiable expense in this era. It’s furure is clear- a Pacific grave.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “We can and will if we cannot pay for it or have to keep borrowing.”

    We’ve been borrowing to pay for ISS for almost every year of the program’s existence over the past quarter century. (The US only ran a surplus for a year or two during the Clinton Administration.) That hasn’t stopped its construction or operation.

    “The U.S. can keep doing ‘work to rule’ operations and meeting minimal contractual obligations– possibly subcontract/sublet…. or sell off its stake.”

    This is nonsensical gibberish. The ISS partnership is an intergovernment agreement. It’s not a contract that can be subcontracted or a lease that can be sublet. And the US can’t “sell off its stake”. Without NASA ground assets and workforce, the ISS cannot be operated. No one is going to buy an inoperable space station.

    “It’s furure is clear- a Pacific grave.”

    This is stating the obvious. At some point, the ISS will reenter.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 3:44 am

    The U.S. can keep doing ‘work to rule’ operations and meeting minimal contractual obligations…

    Ah, a union guy. Well that explains your attitude on a number of things…

    Its [the ISS] just throwing good money after bad.

    I think everyone involved with the ISS program has admitted that they spent so much time getting it built that they don’t have enough “big science” coming out of it yet. It’s also impossible to “schedule” useful science.

    However over at NASASpaceFlight they describe a study that Boeing has done called “Asteroid Mission Concept with Solar Electric Propulsion“, where they talk about their concept for NEA and Mars missions.

    What their study shows is the benefits of not only the historical information from using the ISS, but also the usefulness of having the ISS for maturing exploration concepts before committing to exploration hardware. The article said:

    According to the Boeing presentation, “ISS experience and the addition of regenerative ECLSS has significantly altered consumables requirements from previous baselines,” thus indicating that large habitable volumes are not needed for the early phases of inner solar system exploration.

    In fact, early estimates would seem to indicate, based on the preliminary Boeing presentation, that the Hab module sizes for both NEA missions and eventual Mars missions (both Mars transport Hab and Mars surface Hab) would be identical – 75m3 total.

    Without a permanent foothold in space we wouldn’t have this knowledge, and without this platform we wouldn’t be able to inexpensively test out long-term life support hardware.

    And if you read the article, the unspoken conclusion from the Boeing study is that we don’t need SLS-sized habits – they use the existing 5m diameter MLPM.

    So let’s summarize the potential customers for the SLS – not Planetary Science, since they can’t afford to use the SLS, and not the initial NEA or Mars HSF exploration using Boeing’s model. Doesn’t look like we need the SLS for at least 20 years. Why are we building it?

  • @Coastal Ron
    “So let’s summarize the potential customers for the SLS – not Planetary Science, since they can’t afford to use the SLS, and not the initial NEA or Mars HSF exploration using Boeing’s model. Doesn’t look like we need the SLS for at least 20 years. Why are we building it?
    For the politicians getting pork (Type 8 in my SLS Backers classification system). Those guys won’t take money for SLS from JWST because you don’t mess with your fellow politicians’ pork since that might cause them to resist yours. That leaves Commercial Crew for milking, giving the Russians reason to celebrate. The Russkies are laughing at us all the way to the bank.

    Judging by the comments of some on this blog (mostly Type 10s that are admixtures of types 1 through 4), it’s because there is only one way it should be done and that is SLS (AMEN brother), regardless of what those blasphemous NASA and industry studies you keep bringing up say! The latter want their big awesome thundering rocket at any cost. The former just want to placate their constituents, if it actually ever flies that will just be a bonus. Heck, it’s a more effective form of corruption than the ancient technique practiced by Roman politicians of give ‘em “bread and circuses”.

    For the reader’s convenience.
    1 – Those who think SLS is right because it is designed by NASA and is being developed in the traditional way with NASA micromanaging oversight and traditional contracting methods. It is inconceivable to these people that anything but the mega rocket project Apollo paradigm should be followed, because the traditional NASA way of doing things is holy.
    2 – Super Heavy Lift fans who insist that a launch vehicle of Saturn V size or larger is the ONLY way to go. Alternate NASA and industry studies saying otherwise are conveniently ignored. Cost and lost time waiting while the huge new vehicle is being developed is also totally ignored.
    3 – Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift enthusiasts who think that SDHL is the ONLY way to go, many of these are also Type 2. Again, alternate NASA and industry studies saying otherwise are conveniently ignored as are relative costs and lost time waiting for the vehicle’s completion.
    4 – Those who perceive Commercial Crew as a threat to the existence of NASA, even though it can potentially free NASA to pursue cutting edge technologies to increase the capabilities of humans in LEO, back to the Moon and beyond.
    5 – The NASA Old Guard who either perceive their jobs as being threatened and/or they just don’t want the way things have always been done to change.
    6 – Those who don’t like Commercial Crew simply because it has Obama’s name associated with it and thus SLS appeals to them as an excuse for taking funds from Commercial Crew by adding those funds to the SLS budget.
    7 – Those employed by or associated with a company contracted for SLS and thus personally benefit from SLS.
    8 – Politicians and others who follow the advice of Types 1 through 7 because it economically benefits a particular local area (even when it is not in the best interests of the country as a whole).
    9 – Some just because they haven’t taken the time to thoroughly investigate the issue.
    10 – Any subset mixture of the above.
    Types 1, 2 and 3 are hopelessly unpersuadable because they are religious fanatics. Type 6 is just as unpersuadable for a different reason that is just as irrational. It is possible that Type 4 can be won over if they realize what the facts are. Some of Type 5 have opinions set in stone because there is some basis in reality to their fear of job loss; on the other hand, others of this type might change because they would flourish under the new paradigm but they just don’t realize it yet. Pure Type 7 people are as unchangeable as types 1, 2, 3 and 6, but at least they have a rational reason. Some of Type 8 can eventually change when they realize that even though the new paradigm may have some negative effects for their local area in the short run, it will be a net plus in the long run. Many pure Type 9s with no personal axe to grind (that is, with no Type 1, 2, 3 and 6 tendencies) may change their position when presented with the facts. Only a minority of SLS backers are purely only one of the types 1 through 9, with most being some form of Type 10. Of course, a particular form of a Type 10 person will only be changeable as long they also don’t possess any of the fanatical mindsets of types 1, 2, 3 and 6, and don’t exhibit Type 7. See next page for the four important things.

  • Coastal Ron

    Rick Boozer wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    Judging by the comments of some on this blog (mostly Type 10s that are admixtures of types 1 through 4)

    If you were to summarize your list into broader classifications, I would think it would be like this:

    A. The Unaware – NASA fans like your #1, that don’t have the time to look deep into the issues.

    B. The Uninformed – For what ever reason, they don’t want to understand the situation. This includes big rocket lovers for the sake of having bigger-than-everyone-else rockets, and those that refuse to consider the facts about practicality.

    C. Those That Stand To Gain – Politicians who make choices based on the number of jobs it brings constituents versus the national good, and the companies that see a huge financial incentive and go above and beyond the normal amount of lobbying.

    Of course that could all be further summarized into one category – Those That Are Wrong. I know, preaching to the choir… ;-)

  • Coastal Ron

    Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 10:10 am

    At some point, the ISS will reenter.

    I’m not so sure. It depends on how quickly we can expand out into space, which is predicated on how much we can reduce overall costs.

    I think the ISS could stay occupied long enough that it gets saved for a future museum in space. Or, it could get broken up and used for lots of separate in-space uses, like an L1 hab or stuff like that.

    At the very least I would hope it gets recycled in some way and the mass stays in space. Imagine how much it would cost to get that much refined aluminum from the Moon or an asteroid.

  • Vladislaw

    Rick Boozer wrote:

    “For the reader’s convenience.
    1 – Those who think SLS is right because it is designed by NASA and is being developed in the traditional way with NASA micromanaging oversight and traditional contracting methods. It is inconceivable to these people that anything but the mega rocket project Apollo paradigm should be followed, because the traditional NASA way of doing things is holy.
    2 – Super Heavy Lift fans who insist that a launch vehicle of Saturn V size or larger is the ONLY way to go. Alternate NASA and industry studies saying otherwise are conveniently ignored. Cost and lost time waiting while the huge new vehicle is being developed is also totally ignored.”

    Great job Rick!

    Two of my friends that are fairly conservative Republicans are in a different catagory you do not address:

    National Prestige – Biggest Stick.

    They honestly believe that when America does the biggest anything it acts as another subconcious deterent and the more we pile up the more other countries look to us.

  • pathfinder_01

    While it would be nice to reuse the ISS at its end of life technologically we are not there yet. I think it will be used till 2028, but the way it is built is that the modules one integrated would be difficult(if not near impossible) to take apart and there are some issues like metal fatigue that are not easy to check for in space there are also parts like say thruster that are not easy to replace. In the future I can see space stations becoming longer life with more ability to fix and detect things on orbit. ISS itself has a rack system that allows for certain internal upgrades and changes.

    Yeah the Apollo mind set is limiting. Need large rocket to launch everything all at once vs. use what we have as much as possible. Skylab for instance did have regenerative CO2 and Humidity removal, but not water recycling. Imagine how much space a water tank that must store enough water for three, three person missions of three months must have taken. Right now what would be helpful technology wise would be the ability to wash clothing in space. As it stands now crews on the ISS are sent enough clothing to last their mission. They do wear clothing more than one day, but still that is a lot of space being taken up by fresh clothing not to mention resupply.

    The Boeing mission pretty much just uses heavy lift to send Orion to l1/l2 directly or with unfueled(or partially fueled) lander or to send a chemical kick stage out for NEO/Mars missions. SEP does most of the work. The mars kick stage is like 40MT. Getting that much mass out to l1/l2 could be done with current rockets or slight upgrades to them. Heck they even mention using SEP tugs to lug cyrogenic propellant to a l1 depot!

  • @Vladislaw
    “Two of my friends that are fairly conservative Republicans are in a different catagory you do not address:

    National Prestige – Biggest Stick.

    They honestly believe that when America does the biggest anything it acts as another subconcious deterent and the more we pile up the more other countries look to us.”

    Yeah, I’ve run into those too, but they really fit into one of my categories thusly:

    Those who know that ULA and SpaceX can produce a super heavy lift for much less than what SLS will cost and sooner besides, but support SLS anyway (so they belong to Type 1 and Type 2 and possibly even Type 3).

    Those who don’t know that a super heavy lift can be made sooner for much less than SLS and thus belong to both Type 2 and 9.

    Of course, either of these (like most SLS backers) are examples of a Type 10 admixture.

  • A M Swallow

    With big things watch out for the joke factor. The SLS can lift something like 30 people to the ISS in one go. That puts it in the same category as a school bus. A class can arrive in a school bus but one man by himself will be laughed at.

  • DCSCA

    Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 10:10 am

    “The ISS partnership is an intergovernment agreement. It’s not a contract that can be subcontracted or a lease that can be sublet. And the US can’t “sell off its stake”. Without NASA ground assets and workforce, the ISS cannot be operated. No one is going to buy an inoperable space station.”

    In fact, this is classic gibberish– and surprisingly rigid, if not obstructionist-in-denial- thinking. Anyithing is possible and everything can change– sometimes w/t stroke of a pen or for the right price in hard times. Where have you been for the past 25 years. The Soviet Union is gone, the PRC is rising, the U.S. government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spendas and gas is $5/gallon. We’re in the Age of Austerity and the ISS is a sad relic- an engineering marvel-turned-dinosaur of past planning from an era long gone. .

  • Anyithing is possible and everything can change– sometimes w/t stroke of a pen or for the right price in hard times.

    Again with this idiotic “stroke of the pen” nonsense. Did you cut class the day they explained the Constitution, and separation of powers?

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “Anyithing is possible and everything can change– sometimes w/t stroke of a pen or for the right price in hard times.”

    You can stroke your pen for as long as you want and charge whatever price you want for that in these “hard times”, and it won’t change the fact that no one is going to purchase NASA’s share in the ISS because the ISS can’t function without NASA.

    What a delusional weirdo you are.

  • vulture4

    What we need to do is sell a new share to China.

  • DCSCA

    vulture4 wrote @ March 13th, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    If the fiscal arc isn’t changed soon- soon being a few years- that may be inevitable. But by then, would they want a part of it anyway– or as part of a fiscal deal we’d never hear directly about. We really have no idea what ‘deals’ have been cut– or could be cut– to assure continued borrowing to maintain some fig leaf of stability given the dollar is the chief reserve currency in the world. But if the situation was reversed, where would you draw the line and say no. The ISS isn’t hong Kong. Frankly, if a good deal could be cut, unloading the bulk of U.S. elements as is (like a bad piece of real estate- you know, something Americans showedd recently they excelled at by bundling and unloading bad assets on overseas buyers) to the PRC would be a savvy move as its inevitably going to re-enter and splash within a decade.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 8:19 pm/Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    It’s easy to understand why any change to ISS operations frightens commercial HSF types- as losing a faux government financed destination means losing the only customer and spells doom for fledgling commercial firms. And dealing w/the US government is a better prospect than cutting deals w/others- like the PRC.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “It’s easy to understand why any change to ISS operations frightens commercial HSF types”

    No, it’s not. Companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are backed by billionaires. NASA may need them for ISS, but they don’t need NASA. And companies like Boeing and Sierra Nevada have many lines of business of which commercial space flight is only one.

Leave a Reply to DCSCA 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>