Congress, NASA

Not-so-news about JWST

At yesterday’s House Science Committee space subcommittee hearing on the NASA budget, NASA administrator Charles Bolden was grilled on NASA’s asteroid mission plans, funding for the Space Launch System and Orion, commercial crew, and changes to NASA’s education program. He was also asked, though, about a program that has faded from view recently: the James Webb Space Telescope. Pressed by full committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) about reports of delays with instruments for the James Webb Space Telescope, Bolden commented, “That’s news to me.”

Smith was referring to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessing the state of various major NASA programs. “JWST is currently experiencing technical issues on the spacecraft and integrated science instrument module (ISIM) that have impacted the test schedule,” the report states. “[O]nly two instruments have been delivered for integration with ISIM and the other two instruments will be delivered at least 11 months late.”

That report raised new questions about the ability of JWST to meet its late 2018 launch date and stay within a budget of $8 billion through launch. “The project is worthwhile, and progress is being made, but it’s doubtful the current cost and schedule are realistic,” Florida Today columnist John Kelly wrote Sunday, concluding the report “hints at future delays.”

And while the issues with JWST might be news to Bolden, they’re not news for those who have been following the program. At a JWST town hall meeting at the most recent American Astronomical Society meeting, in California in January, officials noted the delays with the instruments but argued that they did not pose a risk to the program’s budget and schedule at that time. “We’ve been able to cover that with existing budget reserves and schedule reserves,” deputy program manager Eric Smith said of the instrument delays. “There is no change to the launch date and no change to the budget.”

At that same conference in January, though, a key member of the House Science Committee, vice chairman Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), expressed a lack of confidence that JWST was back on track, and said the committee would hold hearings on the status of the space telescope. So yesterday’s hearing is probably not the only time JWST will be discussed by the committee.

98 comments to Not-so-news about JWST

  • DCSCA

    “That’s new to me” says Bolden…
    And while the issues with JWST might be news to Bolden, they’re not news for those who have been following the program.”

    The Peter Principle strikes again!

    Shuttle deadwood through and through. Way to go, NASA Administrator. This guy doesn’t even have to work at being a clueless placeholder. He can phone it in. Retire, Charlie. Before you’re humiliated even more with a public firing.

  • Hiram

    If there is no forseen change to the launch date, or change to the schedule, why should Bolden be concerned, or even notified? That’s a matter that is simply up to the JWST management team. If they can cover it, as part of the project reserves, it would be micromanaging for the NASA Administrator to be sticking his nose into it. That’s exactly what project reserves are for, as shielding between the project and the 9th floor when problems happen.

    That being said, JWST is far from launch, and a whole lot can go wrong with cost and schedule before then. It would be interesting to know how much of the budget and schedule reserves were consumed, five years before launch.

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “That’s exactly what project reserves are for, as shielding between the project and the 9th floor when problems happen.”

      JWST was removed from the management of the Science Mission Directorate. It’s a direct report to the Administrator now. It’s effectively a 9th floor project.

      “If there is no forseen change to the launch date, or change to the schedule, why should Bolden be concerned, or even notified? That’s a matter that is simply up to the JWST management team. If they can cover it, as part of the project reserves, it would be micromanaging for the NASA Administrator to be sticking his nose into it.”

      I disagree. Two of four instruments have slipped almost a year. Keeping those marching armies around is going to be a big hit to reserves, even if some reserves remain and the launch date doesn’t change. Bolden himself has stated that JWST is one of his three big priorities. He should know when half the instrument set has slipped nearly a year on one of his big three priorities, and he should be getting weekly updates on reserves status, earned value, etc. on all three of his big priorities. And he should be getting explanations and options for resolution from his managers when those metrics are trending downward.

      Bolden can’t fix JWST’s problems himself, but he can’t take a see-no-evil/hear-no-evil/speak-no-evil attitude and expect things to just work themselves out. Management is not a passive sport.

      • Malmesbury

        From watching the hearing, he knew. The person asking the question knew and knew that he knew. Everybody knows.

        No, he didn’t lie. Officially, he doesn’t know. Unofficially he does. The reason it is like that, is that knowing officially that JWST is off the rails again would be very upsetting for the JWST porksters. Threaten JWST and you are threatening the whole NASA budget deal. This was

        1) SLS/Orion get theirs
        2) JWST is kept
        3) CC is allowed to exist

        It is already getting fraught. The deal originally was that Orion would fly (unmanned) before the CC vehicles test flew (unmanned). That may slip – at least 2 CC vehicles may fly first.

        Worse, it looks like 2 companies want to fly manned before the next presidential election. Even NASA slow rolling the NDS port for ISS hasn’t slowed them down. I heard that a storm kicked off when plans for NDS-CBM converter surfaced at one of the companies in question….

        Sequestration may not stop them either – Fly successfully before the election and you probably are fireproof for a contract to fly for NASA. Worth risking money over.

        Now is not the time to rock the boat – there are those who feel that the deal is under threat already.

        • common sense

          I believe your analysis is right, at the very least it makes a lot of sense. Indeed if MPCV were to fly first it would be more difficult to terminate the program. If commercials fly first then so long MPCV. So I guess when we get near the end of the term of this WH a lot of those deals will become fair game. But they’ll have to be subtle about it. A “in-your-face” flight with a crew may hamper future efforts with NASA as a partner. They are building strength but I don’t think they are right where they can ignore dealing with NASA HSF. Yet. But it’s coming.

          I can see a scenario where Bigelow sends some form of a station to the Moon and a commercial sends a vehicle for s troll around the Moon even if uncrewed. Prototypes of sorts. Then life will get more interesting. And the stroll around the Moon can be done fairly quickly…

          • Malmesbury

            Not ignore NASA. But it would be very hard to stop a CC company from completing milestones on schedule, just because they aren’t getting paid. Launching to orbit is only a step beyond those milestones….

            If you bolt an adaptor on NDS and ask for permission to turn up at ISS, what can the porkonauts do?

            Going BEO before Orion would be a flat declaration of war.

            • common sense

              No that is not quite what I meant.

              I think they will most certainly want to keep NASA as a customer and therefore will try to the best extent to not upset them. Most civil servants will still be there after Bolden has left.

              I don’t think though you can just show up at ISS. There other international partners…

              But yes going BEO before Orion would be that, provided the commercials still need NASA. Again once Bigelow has something there it will be hard to keep the commercials from going there. And Bigelow may have his own LEO station soon as well…

              So…

              • Malmesbury

                I didn’t mean just showing up at ISS.

                You have to remember the “safe haven” rules from shuttle. These will be used to justify saying that CC has to wait for manned flight until NDS is installed on ISS. The adaptor would get round that.

                What can NASA say if a CC competitor says – “We have completed our milestones. We would like to travel to ISS.

              • common sense

                You seem to assume that this will be done with a NASA crew (?).

                All those rules may apply but if it is a SpaceX crew…

          • A M Swallow

            ‘Common Sense’ wrote

            I can see a scenario where Bigelow sends some form of a station to the Moon …

            Forget Bigelow, he will need a lander. People are working on landers with 1/2 tonne payloads, so a 20 tonne BA330 is just too big.

            • JimNobles

              Forget Bigelow, he will need a lander. People are working on landers with 1/2 tonne payloads, so a 20 tonne BA330 is just too big.

              Last I heard Mr. Bigelow wanted to build assemble his moon base on orbit and then fly the whole thing to the moon and land it that way. I admit I haven’t looked deeply into the plan…

              • Fred Willett

                That’s right. Bigelow’s concept is to land lunar habitats fully assembled. But the rockets to land the habitats will likely be contracted out. Masden, for one, could do that. And SpaceX with their Grasshopper landing technology could be another.

            • common sense

              Well I think the other guys gave you some answers to your concern.

          • JimNobles

            And the stroll around the Moon can be done fairly quickly…

            They’re gonna need some sort of load on the first FH test. But they may not try anything cute because of the risk. And if they can get someone to pay for part of the flight with a little payload they definitely won’t try anything cute.

            • common sense

              I don’t understand what you mean.

              • JimNobles

                don’t understand what you mean.

                I guess what I was trying to say was that if there was no brave customer for the first FH flight then SpaceX could use that opportunity to show off what their new system could do. Like maybe send a payload around the moon. Maybe a refurb Dragon.

                On the other hand they might just decide that would be too risky and have the potential to make them look bad. More so than if they just put some passive mass-simulator into orbit.

                And I figure that if they get any kind of paying customer for the flight, not counting nanosats, they probably won’t try much of anything else except delivering that payload to orbit.

                All of this being not connected to any recovery issues they may be working on.

              • Dark Blue Nine

                “I guess what I was trying to say was that if there was no brave customer for the first FH flight then SpaceX could use that opportunity to show off what their new system could do. Like maybe send a payload around the moon. Maybe a refurb Dragon.”

                I’ve heard that this is the SpaceX plan — use a Falcon Heavy test to throw a Dragon around the Moon. But I heard it secondhand (not from SpaceX), and I heard it over a year ago. I think the source was good — government folks interested in secondary rides on Falcon Heavy tests who should know — but take the rumor with a grain of salt.

              • common sense

                The idea of sending something far has been around since F9.

                The only restraining factor is that you do not want to upset one of your primary customers whether they can do it, or not, does not mean they will do it, or not.

                I assume that FH first flight(s) will be of the prudent kind.

                There will most certainly be opportunities to show off but it will have to be politically correct, literally.

          • JimNobles

            There’s only a couple of things I can see happening before the next election.

            A manned Dragon will not be arriving at ISS until NASA wants it there and for reasons we all know that’s probably not going to happen as long as Dragon can only berth (and MPCV hasn’t flown).

            One thing that can happen is that Dragon flies manned and flies close enough to the station to have a lot of pictures taken. By everybody. But staying out of the station’s safety zone. Don’t look for this before late ’15 probably.

            Another thing that could happen would be to send a stripped-down/refurbished unmanned Dragon Zond style around the moon. With extra tanks in trunk or even in the capsule this should be doable. Although I don’t know the math and specs enough to prove it. Extra points if it can enter lunar polar orbit and take pictures of the poles. And take some cheese. This could happen probably anytime they feel sparky with the new FH. And feel they have the money to blow on such a mission. I suspect that will be the deciding issue, the money.
            -

            • Malmesbury

              Hard to see a declaration of war on SLS/Orion – which going BEO before they do would be. Even going BEO afterwards would be going up to Shelby & co. and chanting “Fight, Fight, Fight…..”

              Dragon (and not just Dragon, by the way) free flying is the most likely. Berthing at ISS is next most likely. A flyby without NASA invitation is very unlikely.

              • E.P. Grondine

                No matter who flies first, the only war that will be declared will be the same one we’re seeing here now, the usual group of manned Mars flight enthusiasts claiming that money “freed” by cancelling SLS/Orion could pay for “their” mission.

                Well, in that case good luck in trying to get Alabama, Mississippi, Florida or any other state to pay for it. I don’t think that walking around Capitol Hill wearing canvas space suits would do any good at all then.

            • common sense

              “A manned Dragon will not be arriving at ISS until NASA wants it there ”

              NASA and the partners.

              “One thing that can happen is that Dragon flies manned and flies close enough to the station to have a lot of pictures taken.”

              Does not have to go anywhere near the station and if they did not have the escape system requirement they might do it just now.

              “Another thing that could happen would be to send a stripped-down/refurbished unmanned Dragon Zond style around the moon”

              Does not have to be refurbished but yes, that is the idea…

              • JimNobles

                “One thing that can happen is that Dragon flies manned and flies close enough to the station to have a lot of pictures taken.”

                Does not have to go anywhere near the station and if they did not have the escape system requirement they might do it just now.

                As per the station fly-around I was thinking of the possible PR opportunity. With pictures and live tv of ISS taken out the Dragon window the (perhaps unsaid) point might be, “Look, here we are! If necessary we could go there now, today! We’re ready!”

                “Another thing that could happen would be to send a stripped-down/refurbished unmanned Dragon Zond style around the moon”

                Does not have to be refurbished but yes, that is the idea…

                I just mentioned a refurb Dragon because it might be cheaper than something else. Plus it would be a Dragon.

              • Robert G. Oler

                The first crewed commercial flight could simply go around the world three orbits and land…and it would/will change the entire debate.

                Its that simple. RGO

        • A M Swallow

          The Commercial Companies do not need the ISS to have a NDS port. Just fit the manned spacecraft with the same CBM they use for cargo flights. Berthing the capsules will be a little embarrassing but the general public will not know the difference.

          • Malmesbury

            Hence the interest in a CBM adaptor – “If you had the right port….”

            • JimNobles

              I wonder how long until the new port is ready and if they are planning on sending it up in a Dragon trunk.

              Are they also going to have to schedule a damn spacewalk to install the thing?

          • pathfinder-01

            “The Commercial Companies do not need the ISS to have a NDS port. Just fit the manned spacecraft with the same CBM they use for cargo flights. Berthing the capsules will be a little embarrassing but the general public will not know the difference.”

            There is a difference in safety. Docking ports allow a spacecraft to dock or undock without the use of the robot arm. The CBM requires the use of the robot arm both to attach and the detach.

            In terms of safety it allows the spacecraft to board or evacuate without the use of the arm (as the arm may not be useable in an emergency or may delay your escape or maybe unavailable if you need to stage an ISS rescue mission). It allows crew to board the ISS with no one aboard. Berthing is fine for cargo because it allows a bigger hatch, but for crew berthing is really limited. Yes crew could board and unboard but the same craft could not function as emergency escape. You might be able to rig something that allows the spacecraft to detach itself without the arm but attaching would still be a problem(say you wanted to relocate the spacecraft as they have done from time to time with Soyuz. Or say you decided for some reason to evacuate and return(i.e. Whatever caused the evacuation is has now been rendered under control and you want to re board).

            • Robert G. Oler

              pathfinder-01
              April 26, 2013 at 3:20 am · Reply

              “The Commercial Companies do not need the ISS to have a NDS port. Just fit the manned spacecraft with the same CBM they use for cargo flights. Berthing the capsules will be a little embarrassing but the general public will not know the difference.”

              There is a difference in safety>>

              Not really no.

              the “Logic” about the docking ports and berthing ports is a prime example (as the suits were on the shuttle/launch recovery) of people at NASA “sitting around” thinking about space and not having much of a clue about what they are doing…and not much of a clue about what is going on about them

              First off the “bail out” scenario is about as likely as a B737/727/707 going down to “manual revesion” in the entire history of the planes it has happened once and that was a crew error not a systems failure.

              Anything is “possible” but in the real world “probable” is a far more likely thing to plan for and design around…there is no likely scenario or failure tree that gets “you” to a general bailout.

              Second the technology for either automating the arm or making the arm controllable from “another vehicle” is or should be near in hand

              There is no more demanding scenario then air to air refueling and the technology exist and is in the field to allow automated boom (and probe) hookup and flight. And flight where the boom is controlled by the automation of either plane.

              I just finished flight test on a 737 (special) for a western country that along with the countries “tankers” has automated AR capability.

              N171LF is one of many “holding” N number for sovereign airplanes being tested in the US (thats no big secret a list of the calls is on the Milcomm bulletin board) but if you want to go Google the N Number and look at flight aware’s track you will see the flight test loop we did…the under 5000 part after take off from GYR was the low level hook up. (and all of this was at 360knots which is a nice feet below 10000 but we are special!)

              The arm could be controlled from either a ground station (I think that they do that already) Or from another vehicle with a data link similar to what modern AR has.

              But along with full cockpit HUDS and “laptop” command links (ie one can fly the airplane I was flying from the IPAD) these are technologies that NASA seems to have no knowledge about.

              Safety is the notion of coming up with reasonable failure modes and planning to those.

              It is a little weird to see it all done “auto” but those days are here…you just have to accept it.

              As for the “N” number, dont worry its already on another airplane…we cleared the plane for delivery yesterday and it got its real “identity”

              Robert G. Oler

              • E.P. Grondine

                Hi RGO –

                Looking at the Mir fire, or the docking collision, I’ll have to go with pathfinder on the safety issue here: that abort capability is needed. Also, there is more an more space junk floating around as well.

              • Robert G. Oler

                E.P. Grondine
                April 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm

                Hi RGO –

                Looking at the Mir fire, or the docking collision, I’ll have to go with pathfinder on the safety issue here: that abort capability is needed>>

                none of those resulted in a bailout. RGO

              • Coastal Ron

                Robert G. Oler said:

                Second the technology for either automating the arm or making the arm controllable from “another vehicle” is or should be near in hand

                Sure it’s possible, but the Canadarm2 is on the end of the Mobile Servicing System (MSS), and that travels the length of the main ISS truss. It’s not dedicated to attaching and detaching vehicles from the ISS, and it requires a human to move it to a new location.

                As unlikely as it might be that the crew would have to abandon (or temporarily leave) the ISS, since we really are still in the infancy of living in space, it makes sense to have crew vehicle use attachment systems that can be controlled by the spacecraft crew without needing an automated system to allow them to leave.

                Remember also that the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) attachment system relies on 16 bolts torqued to 19,300 lbs, and the bolts are torqued down from the ISS side, not the vehicle side. By comparison, the vehicle NASA Docking System (NDS) is the active component, and the ISS port is passive, so the spacecraft controls it’s own detachment.

                I don’t see that this is a big deal, since all future crew vehicles will use the NDS – it’s like not every vehicle will have it’s own design and port. As for the CBM, it’s best use is for the transfer of cargo and being the attachment system for adding new modules to the ISS.

                We have different loading ports and systems for people and cargo here on Earth for air and sea travel, so it’s not like it’s something new…

              • A M Swallow

                The problem is not with the capsules but the ISS. It is the ISS that needs fixing.

        • E.P. Grondine

          Hi Malmesbury –

          Your summaryu of the political deal that was struck seems pretty good.

          Background on the new asteroid mission may be found here:
          http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/04/gerstenmaier-expands-asteroid-mission/
          and it looks to me to be a very good deal, one which satisfies US national goals as well as is possible.

          • Dark Blue Nine

            “Background on the new asteroid mission may be found here… and it looks to me to be a very good deal”

            You have to be kidding.

            NASA won’t know whether they can capture a NEO until after they’ve wasted most of the $2.6 billion to send the retrieval spacecraft to the asteroid:

            “Second, he [Gerstenmaier] made clear that he is making no promises to actually capture an asteroid. The agency has a concept of how to accomplish that, but until the robotic spacecraft arrives at whatever target is selected, not enough will be known about the asteroid to ensure capture will succeed.”

            The mission has little to nothing to do with planetary defense and finding and diverting hazardous NEOs:

            “Third, he [Gerstenmaier] cautioned that the relationship between this activity and planetary defense (or what he called planetary protection) — defending Earth from Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) that could cause catastrophic damage — is tangential… He replied… ‘it’s a little disingenuous to say its sole purpose is planetary protection.’ PHAs are much larger than the 5-7 meter diameter asteroid envisioned for this activity, which poses no threat to Earth.”

            And the mission and even the NEO search are unfunded in the President’s budget request for NASA beyond the first year:

            “there is no explanation of where the money will come from to execute the mission in future years. It does take advantage of spending already planned for SLS/Orion and solar electric propulsion, but the increase for NEO searches is only for one year and no development funds are identified in future year budgets for the robotic spacecraft. NASA assumes the agency will be flat-funded for the next five years at about $17.7 billion. Finding funds for a new robotic spacecraft equipped with a capture device in a zero-sum budget environment will be difficult. The KISS study estimated the cost of this type of mission at $2.6 billion. NASA said it thinks it might be able to do it for less because some of the work is already underway, but the basis for that optimism is obscure since the agency will not even complete a mission concept study until the end of this summer.”

            http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/gerstenmaier-elucidates-concept-of-asteroid-return-strategy

            The whole NEO retrieval mission is a big joke, technically, managerially, and budgetarily. Congress shouldn’t waste any taxpayer dollars on it.

            • E.P. Grondine

              Nice try at spin, DBN,

              But you left out the first part of the plan, which is a vastly improved NEO survey.

              To put this in perspective, while I do not have the exact numbers at hand, the NEO detection budget was around $5 per year from 1998 until last year, so roughly $5 million X (2012-1998), or $5 x 14, or $70 million dollars.

              Now what are those numbers for the cost overruns for the Ed Weiler Space Telescope and Curiousity?

              How much are they when added together?

              • Dark Blue Nine

                “Nice try at spin, DBN,”

                I’m not spinning anything. I’m directly quoting from a former member of the Congressional Research Service who took notes on a public talk by the head of NASA human space flight.

                “But you left out the first part of the plan, which is a vastly improved NEO survey.”

                It’s not going to improve the search for hazardous NEOs by searching for non-hazardous, sub-7m NEOs.

                “To put this in perspective, while I do not have the exact numbers at hand, the NEO detection budget was around $5 per year from 1998 until last year, so roughly $5 million X (2012-1998), or $5 x 14, or $70 million dollars.”

                You’ve quoted prior-year dollars. Do you even know what the budget is for NEO searches this year? What is being proposed for next year? Or for the following years?

                “Now what are those numbers for the cost overruns for the Ed Weiler Space Telescope and Curiousity?”

                The overruns are huge. Billions of dollars. Your point?

              • E.P. Grondine

                Hi DBN –

                Are you really really sure you want the following bit of stupidity to stand:
                “It’s not going to improve the search for hazardous NEOs by searching for non-hazardous, sub-7m NEOs.”?

                Ae you really really sure that you don’t want to revise that remark?

              • Dark Blue Nine

                “Ae you really really sure that you don’t want to revise that remark?”

                The statement is accurate. Dim objects, like C-type, sub-7m, non-hazardous NEOs, require telescopes to stare much longer at fewer, smaller pieces of the sky. That will not contribute to, or potentially even reduce depending on how assets are used, the discovery rate for brighter, 140m+, hazardous NEOs. The problem gets worse when you spend even more telescope time staring at a single, non-hazardous NEO to precisely define its characteristics, instead of scanning the sky for hazardous NEOs.

                And even if you don’t understand what I’ve written, Don Yeomans, head of NASA’s NEO Office, has warned about attention on non-hazardous NEOs taking attention away from the search for hazardous NEOs.

                In terms of planetary defense, this NEO initiative is like policing a tough neighborhood by spending your time and resources interrogating all the 6-year olds. At best it’s a waste. At worst, you’re taking time and resources away from searching for the dangerous offenders.

              • E.P. Grondine

                DBN –

                Oh, I understand you all too well enough. You know just enough about searching for NEOs to raationalize your objections to spending NASA money on it, and no more. Viz, to wit:

                “Dim objects, like C-type, sub-7m, non-hazardous NEOs, require telescopes to stare much longer at fewer, smaller pieces of the sky. That will not contribute to, or potentially even reduce depending on how assets are used, the discovery rate for brighter, 140m+, hazardous NEOs.”

                The key parts of your statement “much longer” and “assets are used”. Yes, “I” want “your” viewing time, although in the real world those assets and viewing time are not “mine” nor “yours”, ut rather belong to those who pay for the instruments, salaries, and data processing: the US taxpayer. And while you are completely afraid of asking them about their desires, I am fairly certain that I have a far better sense than you do of their observational priorities.

                There are people who analyze these problems down to the photons in CCD buckets level, and I am content to leave the details up to them. But Griffin was not, as seen by his suppression of the George Brown Jr. amendment study. All I want is an investigation into that particular act of contempt of the Congress, rather than endlessly waltzing around about this with you.

              • Hiram

                Just to give you the exact numbers at hand, you might refer to the nice reporting by Marcia Smith you referred to above.

                That is, that an extra $20M/yr is proposed for NEO detection, which was at $20M/yr since FY2012. So that makes for a doubling of the program, putting it at $40M/yr total if funded.

                The comparison of this number with JWST overruns is specious. It’s pretty obvious that the Administration considers JWST more important than NEOO. A better comparison might be with the investment in earthquake prediction or hurricane tracking. Those are, like an asteroid impact, natural disasters that can cause extreme loss of life, though the loss-of-life per year for those natural events is far higher than for asteroid impacts.

                Interrogating all the six year olds in the neighborhood will indeed contribute to neighborhood security, but in a grossly inefficient way. The same has to be said for a human visit to a random rock and asteroid impact mitigation. By the same token, setting up your asteroid detection program to be sensitive to small non-hazardous rocks is a grossly inefficient way to find the big ones. In fact, one might worry that the primary goal of such a survey will end up being the identification and tracking of non-hazardous rocks. So in this picture, identification and tracking of potentially hazardous ones becomes a minor goal of the effort, and implementation decisions will be governed by that policy.

              • Dark Blue Nine

                “You know just enough about searching for NEOs to raationalize your objections to spending NASA money on it”

                Where have I stated that NASA should not spend taxpayer monies on NEO searches?

                I’ve stated that NASA should not be directed to spend taxpayer monies on searches for non-hazardous NEOs.

                But I’ve never stated that NASA shouldn’t search for hazardous NEOs. Or that the search for hazardous NEOs shouldn’t be accelerated.

                “Yes, ‘I’ want ‘your’ viewing time, although in the real world those assets and viewing time are not ‘mine’ nor ‘yours’, ut [sic] rather belong to those who pay for the instruments, salaries, and data processing: the US taxpayer.”

                Agreed. (To be clear, I have not worked at a telescope, taxpayer-funded or otherwise, in many years.)

                “And while you are completely afraid of asking them about their desires, I am fairly certain that I have a far better sense than you do of their observational priorities.”

                You have a “far better sense” of the public’s priorities based on what? Magic? Extrasensory powers? Your inflated sense of self and ego?

                In terms of planetary defense, I’m pretty sure that any member of the public would rather have taxpayer resources go to finding hazardous NEOs that could conceivably harm them, not finding non-hazardous NEOs that pose no threat to anyone.

                Only an idiot would want the opposite.

                “There are people who analyze these problems down to the photons in CCD buckets level, and I am content to leave the details up to them.”

                I would be, too, except the details aren’t being left up to them. They’re now going to be directed to look for non-hazardous NEOs, not hazardous NEOs.

                “But Griffin was not, as seen by his suppression of the George Brown Jr. amendment study. All I want is an investigation into that particular act of contempt of the Congress, rather than endlessly waltzing around about this with you.”

                Well then why on Earth are you wasting your time making false and idiotic arguments about the value of a non-hazardous NEO search to planetary defense?

                Why aren’t you arguing that any funds for this initiative be spent first to identify 90% of NEOs that are 140-meters or larger, as the George Brown Jr. amendment to the NASA Act requires? That’s what I’m arguing for.

                Instead, you’re arguing that the money should be spent on wasteful searches for non-hazardous, sub-7m NEOs that will slow, if not reverse, the progress being made under the George Brown Jr. amendment.

                What a huge, flaming idiot you are.

              • E.P. Grondine

                Bottom line, DBN, is that the 7m objects will be found as a result of the PHO search, which needs to go down to 30m anyway.

                And of course 30m objects will be picked up in searches for 120 m objects.

                They are not mutually esclusive as you pretend. And why you continue to try to insist that they are goes to your own motivations.

                As far as my thoughts on the priorities of the public goes, they have been expressed by legislation. I am very interested in exactly why Griffin acted in contempt of that legislation, and intentionally defied it.

            • E.P. Grondine

              Hi Hiram –

              “A better comparison might be with the investment in earthquake prediction or hurricane tracking. Those are, like an asteroid impact, natural disasters that can cause extreme loss of life, though the loss-of-life per year for those natural events is far higher than for asteroid impacts.”

              What part of two orders of magnitude too low do you have a problem understanding? If you go to the data, that is what you find. And if you want to compare NEO budgets with seismology and extreme weather efforts, you find that the money spent each year for the NEO hazard is an order of magnitude less per fatality, and thus too low.

          • E.P. Grondine

            “(To be clear, I have not worked at a telescope, taxpayer-funded or otherwise, in many years.)”

            And please tell us all again how many years ago was it that you worked on that cosmological telescope, DBN?

            • Dark Blue Nine

              “Bottom line, DBN, is that the 7m objects will be found as a result of the PHO search”

              No, they won’t. A C-type, sub-7m, non-hazardous NEO is orders of magnitude fainter than the supra-140m, hazardous NEOs currently being search for.

              “They are not mutually esclusive as you pretend.”

              To a large degree they are. An object that is orders of magnitude fainter requires orders of magnitude more observing time to detect. Many more orders of magnitude of observing time if you’re going to precisely characterize them for a mission. That means your limited observational resources are spending way more time looking at a few, smaller pieces in the sky for faint, non-hazardous objects, instead of looking all over the sky for bright, hazardous objects.

              You may still accidentally catch the occasional, bright, hazardous object while doing a narrow, deep search for and characterization of faint, non-hazardous objects. But your detection rate for the bright, hazardous objects will go way down because your observational resources are no longer being applied in the broad searches that are most efficient for finding bright, hazardous objects.

              I don’t know how to make it any simpler for you. If you can’t understand that, then you need to read a book or take a course on basic observational astronomy. Or just stop commenting on topics outside your comprehension.

              “And why you continue to try to insist that they are goes to your own motivations.”

              In this argument, my motivation is to complete the survey of hazardous NEOs before wasting limited resources on objects that pose no threat to humanity. I’d rather we not get smacked by a hazardous object that we didn’t know about because our limited observational resoures were off staring at non-hazardous objects.

              Again, you don’t police a tough neighborhood by investigating 6-year olds. From a planetary defense viewpoint, NASA’s proposal is a dumb, dumb, dumb strategy.

              “And please tell us all again how many years ago was it that you worked on that cosmological telescope, DBN?”

              I told you in an earlier thread. Put on your big boy pants and go find it. Grow up.

              “As far as my thoughts on the priorities of the public goes, they have been expressed by legislation. I am very interested in exactly why Griffin acted in contempt of that legislation, and intentionally defied it.”

              Bully for your non-sequitor. Go persecute Griffin to your heart’s content. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

              • E.P. Grondine

                DBN –

                “In this argument, my motivation is to complete the survey of hazardous NEOs before wasting limited resources on objects that pose no threat to humanity.”

                Then you agree that the search for Earth like planets around other stars has a much lower observation priority than the search for NEOs, and you agree that the search for interesting but distant nuclear phenomenon has a much lower observational priority than the search for NEOs. And so I can look forward to your future support in changing NASA’s observation priorities.

                “Bully for your non-sequitor. Go persecute Griffin to your heart’s content. It has nothing to do with this discussion.”

                Actually, this discussion is just a continuace of trying to rationalize evasion of responsibility, so it follows on Griffin’s actions very well. As far as persecution goes, I think that the NASA Administrator very deliberately ignoring the instructions of the Congress sets bad precedent, and would like to know who advised Griffin to do it. I would like to be certain that they are gone as well.

                I had very high hopes for Griffin, and I am very sad at what occurred.

  • Hiram

    That’s a fair statement, that JWST is different, because management does now report directly to the Administrator. It is, in fact, Bolden’s responsibility to know these things. I retract my apology for him.

    Now JWST does, in fact, have large reserves, but it’s blown through large reserves before. Also, JWST has actually been ahead of schedule in a number of tasks, so it’s not a zero-sum game. The marching armies for those instruments are actually going to be around until launch (just marching in slightly different directions), so the cost impact of delay may not be that serious. Also, one of the delayed instruments is being supplied (and paid for) by ESA. So we’re not even paying for their marching army.

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “Now JWST does, in fact, have large reserves, but it’s blown through large reserves before.”

      JWST currently has 14 months of budget reserves, but GAO concludes that the program is only projected to have 7 months of reserves after these latest slips and other odds-and-ends are accounted for. It’s a big hit. More importantly, with 5 years left to go before launch, it’s unclear that 7 months of reserves will be enough.

      “The marching armies for those instruments are actually going to be around until launch”

      Yes and no. There are a lot of contractors and subcontractors doing analysis in support of these builds and integration jobs that would be dropped once the instruments were built and/or integrated. (I know a couple personally.)

      “Also, one of the delayed instruments is being supplied (and paid for) by ESA. So we’re not even paying for their marching army.”

      You still have an integration army (regiment?, battalion?) associated with that instrument on the US side.

  • James

    Wasn’t reorganizing the JWST project so it reports directly to Bolden supposed to improve performance? How does someone in the bowels of JWST improve his/her performance just because the org chart was jiggled around?

    So, Bolden should fire himself, right? , if things continue to slip slide away?

    Big projects are too complicated to execute. Everything should be small, including the science return.

  • amightywind

    It isn’t that complicated. Does the project have frequent, well defined milestones with independent verification (this is the key)? Are the milestones being met (i.e. does the planning or executions teams have any credibility?). Is progress consistent with a 2018 launch?

    • Malmesbury

      It is that complicated. Well actually no – it’s just that you asking the wrong question. The right one is

      “How long can you keep the stink from our pork from smelling the place out, otherwise we will stomp on you?”

      • amightywind

        That is not a serious comment. Sometimes a sponsor wants a project that is not obtainable withing the constraints of cost, functionality, or schedule. The question is are you willing to throw one of those levers to complete the project. After much bluster, I’d say the answer still seems to be throw money at JWST.

        • Malmesbury

          Its perfectly serious – this is what the sponsors of JWST want. They want the money spent in their states for as long as possible.

          A telescope in space is a mildly desirable side effect.

        • DCSCA

          “After much bluster, I’d say the answer still seems to be throw money at JWST.” notes amightywind

          It always is, Windy.

        • Neil Shipley

          I’m astonished. A serious comment from AMW. I’d only add that they also need to be measuring and reporting EV.
          Judging from past efforts, I’d say that their project management is severely lacking so things like milestones, EV, comparison to base, etc, etc, either don’t exist or perhaps did initially but no longer which is the case in mayby 60 – 80% of projects according to the research.
          One thing we do know about project management at NASA is that their project managers rarely access their Lessons Learned Database so repeating past failures is not surprising.

          • amightywind

            Yeah, I know the earned value guys. I’ve worked a lot of technology projects and am interested in why it often fails so badly. If the work involves a large development component, uncertainty quickly builds on uncertainty rendering the best schedule fiction. Repetition makes for effective project management. The problem is many NASA missions are unique.

            A serious comment from AMW.

            Don’t be lulled by my current post. I’ll be back sooner or later with b@t5h*t crazy! ;)

  • James

    JWST is surviving because Sen. Barbara Mukulski want’s it to survive. She’s got Goddard in her state, and the Space Telescope Science Institute, which will run all the science ops from JWST as well.

    JWST is not surviving because of great performance, either by the program managers, or HQ.

    No B. Mukulski, No JWST.

    Democracy at work.

    • E.P. Grondine

      Hi James –

      Not entirely. NASA will need SLS/Orion to send a crew to fis it when the Ed Weiler Space Telescope fails, and that most likely will be either at its deployment or a short time later.

      Thus the Ed Weiler Space Telescope has backing from the representatives of the states involved in those projects as well.

  • E.P. Grondine

    You have degrees of slippage. Bolden was likely aware of existing problems, but the new ones were a surprise.

    • Neil Shipley

      Given the history of flagship missions in NASA, schedule slippage and cost overruns should never be a surprise.

      • James

        The history of flagship missions is about to take a big turn; word has it that OMB is telling NASA only 1 science flagship mission per decade. JWST is Astrophysics flagship for this decade. I suspect they’ll rotate through the divisions, so a division can expect a flagship new start once every 40 years.

        This is the legacy of Ed Weiler and other senior executives of his ilk.

        The chickens have come home to roost!

  • Just finished watching Wednesday’s House space subcommittee hearing.

    After putting up with nearly an hour of the representatives demanding a Moon program but not asking how to pay for it, Charlie Bolden finally found a diplomatic but direct way to explain Budgeting 101 to them. This link takes you directly to his statement:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcviNsP4Tao&feature=youtu.be&t=57m39s

    Good for Charlie.

    After that, the remaining questions weren’t quite so silly.

    • James

      In his testimony, Bolden was asked why what was it that Apollo, when announced by Kennedy at Rice University that NASA would land a man on the moon and return him before the end of the decade, inspired a nation, at that announcement, but that when Obama said we’re going to rendezvous with an Asteroid, one could hear crickets (i.e. no inspiration).

      Bolden, weakly IMHO, said Apollo inspired a nation because there were race riots in the streets, we were at war in Vietnam, and we were in a cold war with the USSR.

      Huh? Going to the moon tapped into all the Star Trek geeks out there, who could care less about ‘why’ were going to the moon, and were thrilled that we were doing it – independent of cultural and geopolitical circumstances.

      IMHO Bolden is genuinely passionate about NASA, and serving the Nation, but because of these passion, he is blind to Obama’s indifference towards NASA and NASA science and comes across as a clueless ‘yes’ man for Obama. Its embarrassing to watch.

      • Guest

        That’s not the way I remember it. First of all there were no ‘Star Trek’ geeks when the moon landing was conceived, Star Trek merely filled the huge post Apollo 1 space flight gap. By the time we were actually going to the moon, Star Trek was history.

        And as embarrassing as Charlie and Barack are with respect to space, they are doing the best they can with a bad situation. Could they be doing a lot better with it?

        Hell yes. But NASA is dysfunctional and not going away any time soon and they know it. So yes, this is all make work for a bunch of losers.

        • James

          My bad here. By use of the term ‘Star Trek” geeks, I am referring to those space geeks who were thrilled at the prospects of going to the moon, who are natural space geeks. Yes, Star Trek came on in the late 60’s and was in re runs by the time of Apollo 13

          Charlie is now owner of a dysfunctional organization. I don’t see him doing anything about that dysfunction, other than trying to survive it. In this regard he is also clueless and wedded to past methods for improving the agency; to wit, today’s announcement about the value of removing barriers to innovation, by suggesting, as one example, to let other folks (other than the A team I suspect he means) work flight projects to get experience. Zzzzzz. That idea has been around for ever, and all I ever hear is Project Managers saying “Hell no, not on my project”

          • James

            I meant “Apollo 11″

          • E.P. Grondine

            I guess I’m showing my age, but…

            General Bolden (that name and title is generally used as a sign of respect. People use the shorter “General” as well in open conversation, unless you are sharing a drink, in which case “Charlie” is acceptable.)

            has just turned NASA into a functional organization with this new mission. It is within budget, and preserves and makes the best possible use currently possible of existing national assets.

            In my view, the step after this one will be CAPS on the Moon, and this mission leaves the nation well placed to lead in space into the 2020’s.

            Maybe I’m just an old geezzer, but it seems to me that the SpaceX enthusiasts here would do well to remember that a key part of SpaceX’s engine technology came from NASA Marshall in Alabama.

            • Malmesbury

              You mean Fastrac?

              Well, the Merlin 1a used a pintle injector and ablatively cooled chamber. And had it’s turbo pump built by Barber Nichols.

              In detail it was completely different……

              Tom Mueller’s garage project engine used a pintle injector and an ablatively cooled chamber IIRC….

        • DCSCA

          Bear in mind, the American public in the era Apollo was initiated was well primed by decades of wonderous tales about space travel through various mediums including comic books, classic novels, radio plays, weekly serials featuring BR and FG as well as numerous films (Frau Im Mond, Rocketship X-M, Destination Moon, When World’s Collide.) And in the 1950s, television, one of the most powerful and influential mediums ever created by humans, brought the potential of spaceflight literally into the living rooms of Americans.

          Before ‘Trek’ and LIS, there was the NASA themed IDOJ, and popular programs like Space Angel, Space Patrol, Captain Video, Fireball XL-5 … even TZ mirrored an interest in the marketplace. And films like 2001 and POTA only played to and profited from this clear and obvious public interest ss well.

          Experienced authorities like Von Braun, a stellar marketer, used his Disney work with Willy Ley, along with widely read Collier’s pieces, to cultivate the public by temperng the potential with proposals that appeared quite plausable in an era when missile technology was devoloping and X-series aircraft were flying to the edges of space.

          So when Sputnik flew and Vanguard did not, the publie was primed to react positively to an initiative and that accelerated after Gagarin. So the Apollo inertia was in place. It was a unique confluence of events and timing. So it’s not surprising that Project Lasso was greated with chuckles and yawns by a society that’s literally been zipping through space for half a century and flguratively a half century longer through its popculture. This generation, of course, has no Ming, Gordon or Rogers. It is enraptured by the occult; by vampires and superheroes. Unfortunately for them, Lugosi is dead and Superman can’t appear before a Congressional hearing as an advocate requesting funding to make the Justice League a reality.

          • Robert G. Oler

            DSCA again little to disagree with there.

            The “space age” as far as human flight died when three things happened.

            The first is that NASA made space particularly human spaceflight “to hard”…to mythic to above everyone else.

            Second is that space did not turn out to be like those shows you mention. If Mars was like the Mars in Robinson Cursoe on Mars…we would probably be there already

            Third…there was no compelling value for the dollars spent on human spaceflight…it cost to much

            This is one reason I feel that you are wrong about Dennis Tito’s effort…if it goes…it will change things RGO

            • E.P. Grondine

              Hi RGO –

              I’ll differ with you in the details.

              First off, the first space age died when Mariner 4 definitively showed that Mars was not like the Earth. If you look at the activity levels, that was the specific point.

              The second factor was that launch costs in the real world were much higher than space “enthusiasts” had hoped for in their fantasies, and the necesary payloads were larger.

              In fact, at the start what von Braun had thought necessary was a re-usable 65 ton or so launcher. Roughly a Falcon Heavy or SLS baseline with re-usable LRBs.

              From my point of view, which is currently not widely understood little less accepted, the key result of the first space race was the realization that impacts had occurred. I suppose for the time being I’ll just have to keep prattling on about the current paradigm shift until it becomes obvious to more people.

              Finally, during the 1950’s and 1960’s the costs of space were seen as low enough to be done by one nation, under the existing international relationships. But even with lower launch costs any major projects in space are still so expensive as to require international co-operation.

      • Robert G. Oler

        James
        April 26, 2013 at 10:29 pm · Reply

        In his testimony, Bolden was asked why what was it that Apollo, when announced by Kennedy at Rice University that NASA would land a man on the moon and return him before the end of the decade, inspired a nation, at that announcement, but that when Obama said we’re going to rendezvous with an Asteroid, one could hear crickets (i.e. no inspiration).

        Bolden, weakly IMHO, said Apollo inspired a nation because there were race riots in the streets, we were at war in Vietnam, and we were in a cold war with the USSR. >>

        the problem is of course that little of that is accurate.

        When the lunar landing was announced we were not really at war in Vietnam, we were not having major “race riots” the only thing we were was in a cold war with the USSR…and in the 60 election both Kennedy and Johnson had pummeled the GOP ticket with the “rocket gap”

        the Apollo effort never really had all that much support; it might not have even survived a Kennedy second term (or a Goldwater first term)…the Obama initiative such as it is has floundered just like any other “goal” for humans in space has floundered on the rocks of “why the heck are we doing this”

        No one can explain why the cost of going to (insert place here) for humans is worth it.

        RGO

        • James

          “the problem of course is that little of that is accurate”

          Bingo. And Bolden comes off looking like the water boy for Obama.
          Bingo: No real reason for humans space flight – other than pork-o-nomics.

          • Robert G. Oler

            James. Dont be silly.

            Bolden is a “water boy” (kind of a unkind metaphor) For The President he serves just as Griffin was a water boy for Bush43 and wanted a return engagement as “water boy” for “President Romney” (chuckles)

            All people who serve in the executive branch are “water persons’ (Lets try that) for the President. They carry out their orders and limp along with their general policy morphed into the agency that they work at, head, are retired on duty at or whatever.

            KC at NASA watch has a rather sharp attack on Bolden and sadly most of it is true. Bolden is probably doing the best he can with an administration that is muddled in medeocrity trying to simultaneously build new ideas and concepts while having to drag along the baggage of the old because Obama doesnt have the balls to either shed it or confront the GOP agenda (which is to keep funding the things that shovel money to their favorite industries)

            Plus Charlie is a product of the NASA machine which really believes that Apollo invented cell phones, GPS and the like…they have said it so long that to them its true.

            So what was you’re point? RGO

          • JimNobles

            And Bolden comes off looking like the water boy for Obama.

            Bolden works for Obama. Obama is Bolden’s boss. It’s Bolden’s job to advise Obama but then obey any orders he’s given. That’s the way I’d want it to work if I was President. It’s not Bolden’s job to do what you or I want, we are not his boss.

            Is there something wrong with this setup?

      • Mader

        What you are talking about? Apollo was stunt to show ruskies who have larger… well. You know. This is also why it was discontinued – after showing USA supremacy, there was no reason to fly to Moon.
        Any science was quite incidental and merely bonus.

      • James wrote:

        Going to the moon tapped into all the Star Trek geeks out there, who could care less about ‘why’ were going to the moon, and were thrilled that we were doing it – independent of cultural and geopolitical circumstances.

        Well, now this is a massive fib.

        Star Trek didn’t even hit the airwaves until 1966. It had low ratings and managed to limp along until it was cancelled in the spring of 1969.

        JFK proposed the Moon program on May 25, 1961. We were near the end of Project Gemini when Star Trek aired its first episode.

        Star Trek referred a couple times to NASA. The people at NASA couldn’t care less. Nor did most of the American public.

        • James

          See earlier post in reply to same comment as yours

        • Robert G. Oler

          Star Trek referred a couple times to NASA. The people at NASA couldn’t care less. Nor did most of the American public.>>

          Hmm interesting Kolker would have it down, but except for the time travel episode I dont recall any NASA references in Trek the original…bur (grin) RGO

          • Robert G. Oler wrote:

            Hmm interesting Kolker would have it down, but except for the time travel episode I dont recall any NASA references in Trek the original…bur (grin) RGO

            I think that in the episode “The Changeling” there was a reference to NASA re Nomad. The plot line was recycled into the first movie, i.e. Voyager 6.

            • Robert G. Oler

              OK I was thinking about the one where they get thrown back in time and run into the F-104 piloted by the father of the first Saturn (Planet) mission commander. I kind of liked that one

              Best line from “The Changeling” is something like this

              Mr. Spock “you’re logic was impeccable Captain”

              Kirk “Thank you Mr. Spock”

              Spock “we are in great danger”

              This is as Nomad is about to go “bang” A great episode…but then I am a Trekie the original. To bad Kirk never took on the Borg! RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    this is from the NASAspaceflight.com story on Webb

    ““It is very important that the public be well-informed of the complexity of JWST and the odds of success. Mr. Yoder told the ASAP that the Program has already started working with the Curiosity managers to develop a plan to do that, and the ASAP encourages this effort to continue.”

    According to the meeting’s minutes, ASAP Chair, VADM (Ret.) Joseph Dyer added his encouragement for this effort, recognizing that a great video (a la Curiosity’s “Seven Minutes of Terror”) would be worthwhile.”

    Maybe from the Curiosity people they can get the “large chested” females and the guy who did the neat design in his hair and also maybe teh guy who did the “Skycrane away” maneuver…

    I know for me that made all the cost overruns and lack of actual performance vanish.

    The Roman coliseum RGO

    • Neil Shipley

      RGO
      ““It is very important that the public be well-informed of the complexity of JWST and the odds of success. Mr. Yoder told the ASAP that the Program has already started working with the Curiosity managers to develop a plan to do that, and the ASAP encourages this effort to continue.”

      What the???!! Are they now saying they may not deliver?
      Don’t tell me they actually started this thing without having a clue that it was doable and that they’re only just now, deciding to develop some sort of plan to deal with their problems. Ye gods, and this is NASA and it’s a project that apparently reports directly to the NASA Administrator.
      There was a lot of ‘luck’ involved in the Curiosity venture. Lots of stuff that wasn’t fully understood and that could have gone wrong. However JWST isn’t such a beast. They should be able to test out virtually everything and know that it’s going to work in space before launch. Alternatively the systems that they’ve built should be sufficiently robust to be able to manage a number of shall we say ‘breakages’ and still perform.
      But it doesn’t look like it. Is this another Cx? Sure starting to look like it.
      Just like MPCV is as well. And the odds given these programs, aren’t looking too good for SLS.
      What does this say about NASA? Moving closer to irrelevance and oblivion or just an agency that everyone understands simply employees people but that no one expects anything of substance from? Lots of powerpoint and plans!
      I for one, lack the vocab’ to sufficiently express my disappointment.

  • DCSCA

    “the Apollo effort never really had all that much support; it might not have even survived a Kennedy second term (or a Goldwater first term)” mused RGO.

    Goldwater refernced opposition to it as noted in his acceptance speech at the Cow Palace in ’64. Depends on your metrics for support, too, in a Cold War frame of reference. Nobody likes it when the bills come due. A lot of Cold War expenditures weren’t popular– unless your livlihood depended on it. General opposition on funding for space ranged between the 45% to 60% levels throughout the 1960s but then nobody likes paying for things. Per Smothsonian, “A 2007 poll conducted by a Houston-based consulting company found that Americans believe that 24 percent of the federal budget is allocated to NASA. That figure is in keeping with earlier surveys, such as a 1997 poll that reported the average estimate was 20 percent.” So the polls reveal a vast public misperception.

    “The decision to proceed with Apollo was not made because it was enormously popular with the public, DESPITE GENERAL ACQUIESENCE, but for hard-edged political reasons,” writes Roger D. Launius, the senior curator at Smithsonian’s divison of space history, in the journal Space Policy. “Most of these were related to the Cold War crises of the early 1960s, in which spaceflight served as a surrogate for face-to-face military confrontation.” However, that acute sense of crisis was fleeting—and with it, enthusiasm for the Apollo program.” <– That's a fair asessment.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Enduring-Myths-About-the-US-Space-Program.html#ixzz2Rj7AR9zh

    • Robert G. Oler

      I dont disagree with almost any of that. Launius has done his homework and I think nails it pretty good.

      I should say this. The events in Dallas in large measure sealed Goldwater’s fate in 64 and in large measure I dont think that AuH2O would have had much “luck” with a run against Kennedy/Johnson in 64 in any event.

      BUT had there been a Goldwater/Miller administration it strikes me as unlikely that Apollo would have survived.

      The big question of course is would it have survived a Kennedy second term. There is nothing but speculation here…but the “popular view” of Apollo was “fleeting” and really the window of it having an edge of popularity was very very short.

      The time span from 63 to 66 was a major world “change” in terms of urgency and fear and other things in the US/USSR confrontation. Both sides had played with the notion of “war” in the eearly 60’s and been terrified by it…

      Plus by that time the US was bleeding itself in Vietnam AND unlike today Johnson would not deficit spend to finance anything.

      Your post makes the repeated statements you make of SLS having some global strategery (sorry in honor of Bush 43) seem even more strange.

      RGO

      • DCSCA

        “The big question of course is would it have survived a Kennedy second term.” mused RGO.

        Given the Soviet propaganda successes on that front in that era, which continued well into the mid ’60s, it’s likely a second JFK administraton would have kept pace with Soviet space efforts simply as a matter of the administration’s Cold War policy. JFK’s brief trial balloon about ‘joint’ space efforts was quickly shot down by NK– within a day or so if memory serves. Their firsts were reaping high propaganda returns at the time as U.S. efforts played catch-up. Post the Leonov/White walks, it was Gemini that really began to even the ‘race’== a race the Soviets never really publcly acknowledged and was all but lost with the success of Apollo 8 in ’68. A ‘race’ only fully hard-evidenced- to the public anyway- after the USSR dissolved.

        • Robert G. Oler

          All this is utter speculation but I find it interesting in terms of identifying paths not taken

          THe hero of Stalingrad was out in I think October of 64 and L. Brezhnev …

          when that happened the cold war was more or less over at least in terms of becoming hot. I have always wondered if a leader in the US who was more secure then say Johnson could have made some “moves”

          Ah well never know. Its about like wondering how the US is under President Gore…RGO

          • DCSCA

            “THe hero of Stalingrad was out in I think October of 64 and L. Brezhnev …

            when that happened the cold war was more or less over at least in terms of becoming hot.” mused RGO

            You’d get a strong argument against that POV from the citizens of East Berlin, Poland, Prague circa 1968 and everybody lost aboard KAL-007. THe jig was up when th wall came down in ’89.

  • vulture4

    RGO: in the 60 election both Kennedy and Johnson had pummeled the GOP ticket with the “rocket gap”

    As I recall, it was the “missile gap”

    Ironically von Braun answered it with the first large rocket that was never used as a missile.

    • Robert G. Oler

      Vulture4.

      the odd thing is of course there was no missile gap. SCORE had proved to the Soviets something that they already knew, that the US could not only out manufacture them but the missiles could out perform them…and they knew our warheads were smaller.

      The missile gap was much like terrorism…once you embrace it you almost can never let it go and JFK got caught up in it.

      More and more it is impressive how good Ike was. RGO

    • E.P. Grondine

      And the answer is: it was Trevor Gardner who broke with Eienhower and turned the “missile gap” into a political issue. Also, Eisenhower tremendously shifted US military systems based on new information, and had the Saturn 1 and Apollo capsule far into development as an answer to the N1 before Kennedy took the Whitehouse keys.

      • Robert G. Oler

        He was more or less the guy who pushed Atlas and later established the Arms control agency…Trevor Gardner….wow that was a name out of the past. RGO

        • E.P. Grondine

          Hi RGO –

          Thanks, and Thank G*d there is at least one other person here who knows their stuff.

          There was a person working on a biography of Trevor Gardner, but now I do not know how that is going, or even if he, that historian, is still with us.

    • DCSCA

      in the 60 election both Kennedy and Johnson had pummeled the GOP ticket with the “rocket gap”…

      Yes, in the televised Nixon/Kennedy debate JFK called out RMN to his face by noting that in his ‘kitchen debate’ with NK, Nixon said ‘you may be ahead of us in rocket thrust but we’re ahead in color TV.’ JFK said to Nixon that he believed rocket thrust was more important than color television.

      The dirty little secret was that there really wasn’t a ‘misile gap’ at all. Soviet rocket thrust was greater by necessity only because their warheads were heavier than counterparts developed in the U.S.

      • E.P. Grondine

        HI DCSCA –

        The issue worked in the ’58 elections as well.

        As far as the “missile gap” goes, it existed when Gardner broke with Eisenhower.

        While I suppose this is ancient history nowadays in 2013, it is curious to see it being currently mistated rather constantly by those who don’t know it.

        Where the hell is the Old Geezer’s Smile emoticon?

Leave a 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>