White House

National space transportation policy still “in work”

While the Obama Administration issued a new national space policy fairly quickly, releasing it in late June of 2010, it has been slower to develop more specific space policies, such as in the area of space transportation. While there were indications last year that the policy could be done by the fall, no policy has yet been released, and an administration official Thursday offered no specifics about just when that policy might be released.

“We continue to work the national space transportation policy,” said John Olson, assistant director for space and aeronautics in the Office of Science and Technology Policy, at the FAA Commercial Space Transportation conference in Washington Thursday morning. Neither in his speech, nor in the question and answer period that followed, though, did he indicate when the policy might be released. “Significant progress has been made” on the policy, he said later. “It is in work.”

Olson didn’t give specifics about what the policy might contain, since it hasn’t been released yet, but reassured conference attendees that its contents will not come “as a surprise” when it is released. “In many cases, we’ve already implemented many of the principles” of the policy as various agencies implement the overall national space policy, he said.

35 comments to National space transportation policy still “in work”

  • JimNobles

    I don’t know how much they can realistically do. The administration can’t propose anything medium or large that Congress will have fund. This Congress won’t do it. I doubt the next Congress will either. Or probably the one after that.

    If they can find something to propose that’s actually useful and doesn’t cost any money the Congress might support it. Maybe not even then. Our government seems to be controlled by wackos and juveniles right now.

    • amightywind

      Our government seems to be controlled by wackos and juveniles right now.

      I wouldn’t say that. Two diametrically opposed political ideologies are clashing over the fiscal future of our country, which is increasingly bleak. There is little room for compromise.

      • Robert G. Oler

        amightywind
        February 7, 2013 at 7:03 pm · Reply

        Our government seems to be controlled by wackos and juveniles right now.

        I wouldn’t say that. Two diametrically opposed political ideologies are clashing over the fiscal future of our country, which is increasingly bleak<

        actually the fiscal future of The Republic is improving now that the GOP pestilence is in retreat. The elimination of tax giveaways to the rich and other things have started to bring the deficit down, we are looking at 800 billion dollar deficits which are reasonably manageable by cuts to non performing programs such as F-35 and other things including SLS/Orion.

        the differences in outlook can be seen by comparing SLS/Orion supporters with those of commercial space. RGO

  • DCSCA

    “While there were indications last year that the policy could be done by the fall…”

    ie., another year of ‘free drift.’

    United States space policy remains reactive. Never proactive.

    • Neil Shipley

      How often are governments and their agencies proactive?

      • DCSCA

        “How often are governments and their agencies proactive?” asks Neil.

        Well, Germany was proactive w/von Braun; the Rssians were quite proactive w/Sputnik and Gagarin– even Britain was proactive when it created a prison colony — Australia— back in the day. Governments are very proactive when their inteests are in play. That’s why SLS is a ‘go.’

    • Coastal Ron

      DCSCA moaned:

      United States space policy remains reactive. Never proactive.

      With a NASA budget at 0.5% of the national budget, and falling, what do you expect?

      You have to stop thinking that all space exploration should be modeled on Apollo – that was 50 years ago, and nothing equivalent has come along to repeat it.

      That is why NASA should be allowed to go back to it’s NACA roots, because NASA does a pretty good job partnering with industry to develop capabilities that require sophisticated talent and facilities. Yes, that’s right, public/private partnerships, just like what COTS, CCDev and CCiCap are doing. And then they use those capabilities to seek out and develop new markets for products and services.

      That’s a good thing, because the only way we’ll expand our presence out into space is by commerce, so the sooner we get that going for human activity in space, the better. Because your “government projects of scale” (or whatever you call them) depend on an acknowledged National Imperative, and those don’t exist right now.

      • DCSCA

        “You have to stop thinking that all space exploration should be modeled on Apollo – that was 50 years ago, and nothing equivalent has come along to repeat it.”weeped Ron.

        nobody says it should be repeated on that scale. On you. and, of course Garvr during pressers at the STS-135 launch. One thing is certain- as the history of modern rocket development has demonstratd, private enterprise has NEVER led the way in the field. It has been governments, in various guises and for a variety of geo-political motives- which has led the way in this field. Reaganomics is not going to fuel the way out into the cosmos. Sober up, Ron.

        • Coastal Ron

          DCSCA opined:

          One thing is certain- as the history of modern rocket development has demonstratd, private enterprise has NEVER led the way in the field.

          Well considering that space initially was just an extension of our military confrontations with the Soviet Union, why should private enterprise lead? Even Apollo was an extension of our efforts in the Cold War.

          But who built the space hardware? Commercial companies. And as the government/military stranglehold on space loosened, commercial companies figured out how to make a business out of space. Now they far outstrip what governments are spending on space, and it’s only accelerating.

          What is NASA’s budget? Around $18B/year, right? In 2011 the satellite manufacturing industry had revenues of almost $12B, and the satellite service providers had revenue around $108B. The U.S. satellite launch market was about $2B, but because of SpaceX it will be growing at a fast pace. Factor in that commercial companies get far more hardware for the same amount of money that NASA spends, and the trend should be pretty clear, even to someone like you… ;-)

          If it’s not already apparent to you, there is a lot of money being committed to a number of commercial space endeavors, from transportation to mining. If history is any guide, not all will make it – but some will, and that will pave the way for even more. THAT is how frontiers are opened, not waiting for Congress to release funding for each multi-$Billion launch of the SLS.

          It has been governments, in various guises and for a variety of geo-political motives- which has led the way in this field.

          In the 50 or so years since we reached space, governments have done a pretty poor job expanding our presence out into space. Just six people in a science outpost. You call that leading? Bigelow could equal or exceed that amount of people in just 5 years!

          Stand aside government-boi, and let the business people take it from here.

          • DCSCA

            “why should private enterprise lead?” admitted Ron/

            You just made my point, Ron. Space X is not NASA. You’ve got to start seeing space ops through geo-polirical glasses. The stipends for robotic exploration’ aside, space ops is chiefly geo-political. Apollo was geopolitical.

            • Coastal Ron

              DCSCA moaned:

              Space X is not NASA.

              Good thing too, since otherwise American wouldn’t be taking back international launch business that fled after Lockheed Martin and Boeing decided to concentrate on maximizing their profits through their ULA monopoly.

              You’ve got to start seeing space ops through geo-polirical glasses.

              What is “geo-polirical”

              I suggest you use a spell-checker if you want people understanding what you write.

              But if you mean “geo-political”, then no, that is the old model for space exploration – the Apollo one. I know you are fixated on Apollo, but you can see how far it has led us out into space since the last Apollo mission 40 years ago.

              The stipends for robotic exploration’ aside, space ops is chiefly geo-political.

              Regardless what you call it, Bigelow, SpaceX and Boeing will call it revenue when Bigelow’s Space Complex Alpha starts receiving it’s first international customers. ;-)

      • DCSCA

        “That’s a good thing, because the only way we’ll expand our presence out into space is by commerce,” reaganed Ron.

        This is just silly, Ron. Thirty years ago that was the battle cry around shuttle all throgh the press and periodicals even in the wake of the Challenger loss. We are living in their ‘thirty years from now’ time frame. And they were wrong. Just as you are.

        • Coastal Ron

          DCSCA wondered:

          Thirty years ago that was the battle cry around shuttle all throgh the press and periodicals even in the wake of the Challenger loss.

          It’s amazing how clueless you are – the Shuttle was a government-run program, not a commercial response to an emerging market. It was an effort to do what governments sometimes try to do, which is to build transportation infrastructure. But since it wasn’t in response to a well understood market need, and they didn’t truly understand how to build a reusable transportation system, it failed pretty early on, but political inertia kept it going, not true need.

          But notice how you have yet to explain how we can expand our presence out into space solely through NASA’s paltry budget. Hmm? That’s because we can’t. NASA can be an engine of innovation and leading edge exploration, but it does not have the money or the recognized task of being an “occupier”. Run science posts like the ISS, yes, but our future is not to ride on NASA space transports, and sleep in NASA space hotels.

          Human expansion out into space, absent some sort of “National Imperative”, can only be financed by commerce. Which is the way it’s always been done.

  • Yet another SLS/Orion problem has manifested itself … From the Huntsville Times:

    NASA’s deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development, Dan Dumbacher, told the panel on Feb. 4 that the in-flight test of the system designed to save astronauts from a launch abort will not happen until the full Space Launch System makes its flight debut in 2017.

    “This is a development problem,” the website quoted Dumbacher telling members of the National Research Council’s Committee on Human Spaceflight. “You run into problems along the way, and there are things that have to be moved around and things that have to be reshaped.”

    NASA still plans to launch an Orion in 2014 to test its heat shields and landing gear.

    So let’s see … We know the capsule is 4,000 pounds too heavy, and now they can’t make the abort system work.

    • josh

      nasa can’t get an outdated apollo style abort system to work while spacex is readying it’s next gen pusher style les. how embarrassing.

      • JimNobles

        Isn’t CST-100 pusher as well? And the Bezo’s Bomber? And of course Dream Chaser will be.

        I hate to say it but NASA has gone full retro, full Flintstone with SLS.

    • Robert G. Oler

      the program is collapsing around the aholes who are running it RGO

      • DCSCA

        the program is collapsing around the aholes who are running it RGO
        … The naysayers predicted that back in January, 1967, too. They were wrong as well.

    • JimNobles

      .

      Dan Dumbacher, told the panel on Feb. 4 that the in-flight test of the system designed to save astronauts from a launch abort will not happen until the full Space Launch System makes its flight debut in 2017.

      How are they going to have it’s flight debut and a LAS test on the same flight?

      • Coastal Ron

        JimNobles said:

        How are they going to have it’s flight debut and a LAS test on the same flight?

        Do you think Congress is going to spend EXTRA money to throw away three SLS & MPCV without crew just to prove that they are “safe”?

        Congress hasn’t allocated enough money to the SLS program so that NASA can abide by the same rules it is applying to Commercial Crew – yet another indication that the program is being underfunded severely.

        • JimNobles

          .
          Do you think Congress is going to spend EXTRA money to throw away three SLS & MPCV without crew just to prove that they are “safe”?

          No.

          Congress hasn’t allocated enough money to the SLS program so that NASA can abide by the same rules it is applying to Commercial Crew – yet another indication that the program is being underfunded severely.

          Yes.

          But I am still wondering how they think they are going to have a flight debut and a LAS test on the same flight. If they fly the full flight plan the LAS won’t really be tested. If they use (test) the LAS sometime during the flight then I think it wouldn’t really be a full flight debut. I’m wondering what they’re thinking.

        • Robert G. Oler

          Congress hasn’t allocated enough money to the SLS program so that NASA can abide by the same rules it is applying to Commercial Crew – yet another indication that the program is being underfunded severely.>>

          NO absolutely not, SLS/Orion are not being underfunded…the programs are wasting money hand over fist by bad maangement decisions. RGO

      • A M Swallow

        The Orion LAS test does not have to be on SLS flight. A cheaper launch vehicle like the Delta IV or Falcon Heavy could be used.

        • Coastal Ron

          A M Swallow said:

          A cheaper launch vehicle like the Delta IV or Falcon Heavy could be used.

          Yes, but every time they use a far less expensive launch vehicle, people will ask “why do we need the SLS if the commercial rockets are far less expensive, far more available, and can do the same job as the SLS for the MPCV?

          The politicians that are pushing the SLS for jobs, not exploration use, don’t want that.

      • Coastal Ron

        One more thought regarding “human rating” the SLS/MPCV. If NASA were to follow the guidelines the DoD is using for ensuring commercial rockets are safe enough for DoD/NRO payloads, then the crew-carrying version of SLS would have to fly at least 3 times (successfully of course) before NASA would fly any humans onboard.

        That is not what NASA is planning, mainly because of two reasons:

        1. The cost of the SLS is so high and the budget barely covers development

        2. The flight rate for the SLS is non-existent, since there are no planned uses for the SLS. So it’s not like commercial rockets where you can validate the rocket on non-government, non-crew flights.

        So here we have, yet again, NASA being forced to send humans up on the first flight of an untested rocket. And it gets worse! NASA will be continuing to mix and match new major rocket elements because of the booster change and trying out larger versions of the stack – each one a new, untested configuration.

        If they only used the SLS for cargo, no one would care. But the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) was all hot and bothered when they found out the CCiCap companies would be doing company tests with company personnel prior to any NASA flights, and here we have the situation where NASA personnel have to be the guinea pigs on the first flights. Is the ASAP turning a blind eye to this issue because it’s NASA?

    • Dark Blue Nine

      AFAIK, this schedule slip isn’t a safety issue, at least not yet. No crew are scheduled to fly until 2021; the 2017 SLS/MPCV flight test is uncrewed. Even with the LAS flight test pushed out to 2019, they still have two years to get it done (or redo it if there’s a test failure) before crews need the operational LAS.

      But this schedule slip does destroy the hopes that the program had of moving the first crewed flight in 2021 back to 2019. The kinds of schedule improvements that the program wished for in the article below are no longer possible:

      http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/sls-mission-improving-crewed-moon-mission-2019/

      This schedule slip will also drive total SLS/MPCV development costs even higher, as the large LAS design/development team, which includes ATK, Aerojet, OSC, LockMart, and NASA, has to sit around 2+ more years.

      At one time, the integrated Orion/LV abort test was to take place on Ares I-Y. I don’t know what the current or revised plans are, but if this schedule slip results in a test that is unlike the actual SLS/MPCV system, that _would_ present a safety issue. If they can’t “test like they fly and fly like they test” because an SLS stack is too costly to expend an integrated abort test, then that’s another reason to get off SLS ASAP.

      Of course, any capsule abort on a stack with two big SRBs is highly compromised from a safety perspective to begin with. As long as SRBs are in the stack, it arguably doesn’t matter whether they ever perform an integrated abort test.

      • “Of course, any capsule abort on a stack with two big SRBs is highly compromised from a safety perspective to begin with. As long as SRBs are in the stack, it arguably doesn’t matter whether they ever perform an integrated abort test.”
        Are you speaking of only the fact that combustion can not be stopped in SRBs (thus requiring greater acceleration of the LAS from a still accelerating launch vehicle) or are you thinking of some other SRB issues?

        • common sense

          The most “obvious” issue with having SRBs burning is what you are saying since on Ares-I it was shown there were abort cases requiring at least 15 Gs which left little chance to the crew. Indeed in an abort the situation is such that you cannot really expect the vehicle to be in the perfect attitude when the abort takes place… By definition.

          Now with SLS you have not 1 burning booster but 2 and they can somehow chase the capsule from 2 different trajectories. Especially when they go full power on ascent but I would hope that the escape procedure would somehow require the boosters to remain attached to the core on abort. Now depending where the brains of the stack are you might imagine you can “control” the stack at abort but if not that must make an interesting day if the stack is chasing you on abort. Which is worse? The stack chasing you, 2 burning boosters chasing you, or a stack being obliterated by aerodynamic forces and burning, or not, debris chasing you?

          But I am not worried, I am sure they thought all those scenarios over, just like what they did with the Sidemount.

          Oh well…

        • Dark Blue Nine

          “Are you speaking of only the fact that combustion can not be stopped in SRBs (thus requiring greater acceleration of the LAS from a still accelerating launch vehicle) or are you thinking of some other SRB issues?”

          It’s two issues. One is an intact but unterminated and thrusting SRB (your issue). The other is the radiant heat from deflagrating SRB fuel melting the parachutes on an aborting capsule (the issue raised by the USAF years ago during Ares I/Constellation).

          The only way to be certain that an SRB doesn’t chase and fatally collide with MPCV in the event of an abort is to terminate the SRB, i.e., rip it open with explosives. But that will expose MPCV’s parachutes to the radiant heat from still-burning SRB fuel, resulting in a fatal drop for the crew. (Alternately, an SRB could deflagrate for reasons other than an intentional termination.)

          Of course, this combined problem is doubled on Shuttle-type stacks like SLS with two SRBs.

          A capsule/LAS combination that can survive the hellish abort scenarios imposed by the SRBs has never been tested because Shuttle wasn’t a capsule and didn’t have an LAS. It should be tested before crew fly to be certain that MCPV’s LAS can get MPCV away from two thrusting SRBs and the radiant heat from two deflagrating SRBs. The cost proposition of such tests is very high, and I suspect that’s not what NASA was planning for the LAS test that just got pushed back to 2019.

      • common sense

        “At one time, the integrated Orion/LV abort test was to take place on Ares I-Y.”

        Once upon an even longer time ago the first LAS test was supposed to be a “Little Joe” test. But that is waaayyyyy back when dinosaurs were still roaming the Earth…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Joe_(rocket)

  • James

    The National Space Transportation Policy will be that the National Space Transportation Policy is always changing and to be revisited every year.
    Sheesh.

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>