Congress, NASA

House members seek details on SLS/Orion schedules and spending

A day after NASA announced that the first SLS may not be ready for launch until as late as November 2018, two key members of the House Science Committee asked NASA for details on both the schedule and funding levels of the SLS and Orion programs.

In a letter released by the committee Thursday morning, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Steven Palazzo (R-MS), the chairmen of the full science committee and its space subcommittee respectively, asked NASA administrator Charles Bolden for details about reports that both SLS and Orion were in danger of missing the planned December 2017 launch date for EM-1, the first SLS/Orion mission. The letter does not mention the KDP-C review that NASA announced Wednesday, but an earlier GAO report on SLS cost and schedule risks and recent comments by Orion program manager Mark Geyer that he will be “challenged” to make that December 2017 date.

In the letter, Smith and Palazzo suggest that NASA and the Obama Administration have not properly funded SLS/Orion development. “The Administration continues to submit insufficient budget requests for these vital programs,” they write. “Despite numerous statements over several years that these two national priority programs are sufficiently funded, it now appears that this may not be the case.”

Smith and Palazzo pose several questions to Bolden in the letter, including, “Will NASA be able to fly the SLS for Exploration Mission-1 in calendar year 2017?” If NASA isn’t able to, they ask what’s changed since previous testimony to the committee, including whether Bolden knew about the slip when he testified before the committee in March. (It’s worth noting that, in his prepared statement to the committee in March, Bolden said that “NASA is pressing forward with development of SLS and Orion, preparing for a first, uncrewed mission in FY 2018.” While that would include December 2017, fiscal year 2018 runs until September 30, 2018.)

“In fact,” Smith and Palazzo write, “despite NASA’s best efforts to keep these programs on track, it appears as though the Administration is starving these programs of funding and preventing important development work with the goal of pushing back schedules.” They seek responses to their questions from NASA by September 10.

131 comments to House members seek details on SLS/Orion schedules and spending

  • Robert G. Oler

    Yawn…increase the pork.. RGO

    • There ain’t no bigger pork than the ISS and the Obama administration’s attempt to continue NASA’s perpetual mission to LEO!

      NASA hasn’t been beyond LEO since 1972, 42 years ago. And during that time, NASA has spent more than $210 billion– in today’s dollars on crewed LEO programs, dwarfing that of NASA’s beyond LEO Apollo program that cost less than $140 billion in today’s dollars according to President Obama’s own Augustine Commission.

      Marcel

      • Robert G. Oler

        Marcel

        I am on record with various op eds during the decision run up to ISS and then the initial build of the station saying just that. the problem is 1) that money is spent and 2) the station now exist.

        it would be incoherent federal policy to have spent all that money and have the station “in orbit” then to say 1) lets get rid of it and 2) try another station (or another big project)

        the “thing” to do is to try and make something useful for ISS even if something useful is initially not sufficient to justify the value of the entire program/project…in large measure this is just competent management…but to another it is the realization that NOthING in human spaceflight is worth the initial investment in it. and that includes your lunar base.

        RGO

        • “it would be incoherent federal policy to have spent all that money and have the station “in orbit” then to say 1) lets get rid of it and 2) try another station (or another big project”

          That’s like saying that Ford should have never moved beyond the Model T after all of the money spent developing it. The ISS has been continuously occupied since the year 2000 and should have been designated to end after 2015. Now the Obama administration is trying to extend it beyond the year 2000. Extending the life of this hyper expensive LEO program beyond 20 years is a waste of tax payer dollars.

          Time to move on!

          Marcel

          • Robert G. Oler

            sorry nothing to move on to…if ISS deorbits there will be no reason to build another station RGO

            • For NASA to send humans to other planets, they’re going to need to test habitats that are water shielded from cosmic radiation and major solar events while also being able to rotate in order to produce artificial gravity or be large enough to internally accommodate hypergravity centrifuges to help to mitigate the deleterious effects of microgravity on the human body.

              Both the SLS derived Skylab II space stations would be large enough to internally accommodate hypergravity centrifuges. They could be launched to LEO by the SLS before the end of the decade to test the hypergravity centrifuge. A Skylab II could be launched to EML1 in 2021 to test its ability to shield astronauts from cosmic radiation and major solar events (about 50 cm of water would be required).

              Of course, you don’t really need such habitats if you really don’t want NASA to have a beyond LEO program!

              Marcel

              • Hiram

                ISS had a centrifuge project that would have contributed fundamentally to our medical knowledge about human response to gravity. That was going to be flyable on ISS, but it was cancelled. Don’t need another space station to do the needed experiments. Just need to deploy the original experiment.

                You keep blathering about using a BEO habitat to test radiation shielding for astronauts. Over and over. I keep reminding you that this is a profoundly dumb idea. Radiation opacity is a property that is measureable perfectly well in the laboratory, with sensitive instruments that don’t die if they get too much of it. You can have tests about in-space shield deployment and construction, but you sure don’t need human beings inside to test it.

                The best estimates are that unshielded humans outside of LEO will have their life expectancies reduced by 10-30% after a year of radiation. So what does your experiment look like? Send fifty people up there and see how many die after ten years? Sheesh.

                C’mon. You’re so smart. Tell me why we need human guinea pigs in space to soak up radiation.

              • Robert G. Oler

                Marcel you are not up todate ISS can test all those things; what it requires is money to build them and SLS with competitive bidding could do all that.

                What you likewise do not grasp is that in the US there is no support for a massive apollo like program to send people to explore Mars etc…you dont grasp that Apollo is over. RGO

        • You realize we are trapped with Putin, a modern day Adolph Hitler, on the ISS? The program is obviously finished. Within a month the US will be funneling heavy weapons into Ukraine to be used on our partners, the Russians. Will that be enough to halt the ISS program? I’m amazed people still cling to their 1990’s internationalist fantasies.

          • Hiram

            “You realize we are trapped with Putin, a modern day Adolph Hitler, on the ISS? ”

            Funny, that.

            You realize that Adolph Hitler was (perhaps indirectly) responsible for perhaps the boldest moves in rocket propulsion, leading to present-day space exploration. Our Apollo program would have gotten nowhere without the wisdom he cultivated. At least he did one thing right.

            In fact, the ISS was first conceived at the time that the Soviets were invading Afghanistan. President Carter called that invasion “the most serious threat to the peace since the Second World War.” Of course, the U.S. was then aiding the Mujahideen movement there, which opposed the Soviets. The point being that cooperation on ISS has been largely independent of small-scale international conflicts that had the U.S. and the Russians on opposing sides, and was considered important diplomatic outreach from both sides.

            If the ISS program is “obviously finished”, then I guess the U.S. won’t be sending any humans into space for a couple of years. That would finish off HSF in the U.S. pretty much entirely.

            That being said, I’m amazed that people still cling to their Cold War fantasies.

            • I don’t blame Werner Von Braun for Hitler’s actions. The German rocket engineers turned out to be fine Americans, especially compared to the refuse we import today. What an absurd argument, even for you. A long hiatus in US spaceflight is the obvious and unavoidable result of the carnival of poor decisions made by Obama’s NASA.

              • Hiram

                I was just talking about Nazis in the context of space flight, and their relevance to ISS which you first brought up. Of course, Putin himself is now calling the Ukrainians “Nazis”. Take that! So “Nazi” and “Hitler” are useful names when we’re blathering about things we don’t like that we can’t really explain cogently.

                By the way, the German rocket engineers turned out to be fine Americans, especially those who hid their previous efforts in the concentration camps. Fine Americans indeed. Von Braun himself had been accused of crimes to humanity.
                You want to talk more about refuse?

                This is all somewhat off-topic, and apologies to Jeff for that, but calling people names is not a constructive contribution to space policy discussion.

              • common sense

                Hitler? Nazis? Fine Americans? Really?!?!

                Someone forgot their meds it seems. Come on, get on it.

              • Jeff Foust

                Let’s stay on topic and avoid name calling, please. Thank you for your cooperation.

              • Paul D.

                The German rocket engineers turned out to be fine Americans, especially compared to the refuse we import today.

                You mean, like… Elon Musk?

            • The ISS is a LEO program. The SLS is a beyond LEO program. Over 40 years of NASA focusing on LEO is about enough. Let private industry exploit LEO for private interest (microgravity research and space tourism). NASA needs to move on!

              Marcel

              • Coastal Ron

                Marcel F. Williams said:

                The ISS is a LEO program. The SLS is a beyond LEO program.

                The ISS is a National Laboratory whose goal is to solve the problems keeping us from living and working in space – and not just LEO.

                The SLS is a rocket, not an exploration program. The goal is to build a rocket with a capacity to LEO of at least 70mt and up to 130mt. What it moves to LEO, or beyond, is not part of the SLS development program.

                And apparently you forget that every piece of hardware that has truly gone BEO (i.e. left Earth local space) has done so on less-then HLV sized rockets. Yet we don’t call them “BEO rockets”, just rockets. And rockets could care less what they carry…

                But based on the paucity of payloads for the SLS, it looks like it will even be a stretch to call it an “operational” rocket, and will probably just end up being a museum piece whose plaque will say “Tested twice successfully, but cancelled for lack of need”.

          • Robert G. Oler

            wind

            Please stop with the short guy with the mustache leading the THird Order…the GOP makes everyone out to be that guy and all it shows is an amazing amount of historical lack of knowledge. RGO

            • It’s amazing how little self awareness you seem to have.

              • Robert G. Oler

                Rand, when something or someone cannot stand by themselves they either readily compare themselves to others (“I am a Reagan Republican”) or a situation to another (“the Chinese are going to take over the moon”) or well compare bad people and groups to other bad people and groups.

                In the end the SLS fiasco is because the Space Industrial complex cheerleaders are on both a “beat the Chinese to the Moon” and “we need another Apollo” which is again comparisons of something that cannot stand on its own to something else.

                it doesnt take a genius of history to recognize that today there are no threats to the world on the order of the short guy with a mustache, unless one is trying to make one. Just as there is no impetus to having another US Apollo project, unless one is trying to make one RGO

      • Vladislaw

        That bulk of that Apollo budget was spent over the course of just a few years. The 210 billion spent over 42 years represents a freakin HUGE cut in resources for NASA. What NASA could achieve, even with a MASSIVE pork premium, was only possible with a massive starting budget of 4.5% of the Federal spending.

        For what you are constantly pushing, NASA would need 150 billion a year. It is not happening. The sooner NASA makes the transition, the faster the pork premium will get stripped out and NASA can start acting like other agencies.

        • Obama’s Augustine Commission estimated that the Constellation program would cost around $98 billion by the time it placed the first humans on the Moon. The annual development cost for the Constellation program were going to be over $6 billion.

          The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated that the annual recurring cost for a lunar outpost program would cost less than $8 billion year– if everything, including water and air had to be exported from Earth.

          And during the height of the Apollo develop program, NASA’s highest annual budget, in today’s dollars, was over $33 billion and during the last two missions to the Moon, its annual cost was less than $16 billion in today’s dollars.

          Marcel

          • Hiram

            Wait, Constellation was going to cost $6B/yr, and it was declared fiscally unimplementable, and now we hear that a Moon base would cost only $8B/yr? That takes care of that idea …

          • Hiram

            “NASA hasn’t been beyond LEO since 1972, 42 years ago. And during that time, NASA has spent more than $210 billion– in today’s dollars on crewed LEO programs, dwarfing that of NASA’s beyond LEO Apollo program that cost less than $140 billion in today’s dollars according to President Obama’s own Augustine Commission.”

            Got news for you. Those $210 billion taught us vastly more about what we need to do to reach out into deep space than Apollo did. Apollo wasn’t even about reaching out into deep space. It was about showing up the Soviets. It succeeded admirably in that.

            This just gets better and better.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    It will be interesting to see the good Congresspersons’ reaction if Administrator Bolden announces that the delays are due to bureaucratic issues – in other words, meetings of managers taking longer and producing fewer decisions. Perhaps rounding off by saying: “All more money would do is give these groups more budget to spend on listening to each other talk.”

  • Egad

    “Please provide a response by September 10, 2014. Your cooperation will assist the Committee in its oversight responsibilities.”

    Sounds like there may be a hearing even before the elections, no?

  • John Malkin

    KDP-E, Flight Readiness and EM-1 all happen after the 2016 election. So I think we will burn money on SLS/Orion until sometime between KDP-D and KDP-E. It will depend heavily on the state of the economy and if they can justify pork for all.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    The sad thing is that Congress is punishing NASA and blaming the Administration for doing the right thing for once. This is the first time in the history of NASA’s human space flight program that confidence levels have been used to determine a major project’s delivery date. And instead of supporting the agency for being halfway honest for once about what it’s going to take to finish a human space flight project, the House authorizers are making political hay out of healthy, objective, relatively hard-nosed cost analysis. No good deed goes unpunished.

    (Or course, the likelihood that Congress will significantly increase the SLS budget over multiple years to bring the schedule back to the left, or that an increase in the SLS budget will fix MPCV for EM-1, is nil.)

    It’s also disingenuous, to say the least, for an arm of Congress to blame the White House for SLS funding when the legislators hold the power of the purse. High school civics students know this for crissakes.

  • common sense

    Congress: “So wha’s up NASA? Can’t do the job with no money?”
    NASA: “Job? What job? We have slides for you! We can even build a Sidemount vehicle!!!”
    Congress: “Yeah! That’s a good idea! Why don’t you change all and build a Sidemount?!”
    NASA: “Sidemount does not work, we tried that lunacy before”
    Congress: “Okay great do it!”
    NASA: “Do what?”
    Congress: “Now that we fixed the SLS/MPCV. Tell us. Why is Obama taking that much vacation? Oh yeah and what about those Global Warming fanatics?”
    NASA: “Say what?”
    Congress: “Can we invade the Moon before the Chinese? Where the heck is Wolf?”
    NASA: “We don’t have a rocket to go to the Moon, except Falcon 9″.
    Congress: “Okay then get on with Monaco, it’s ours! After all Their Princess was US!!!. Go for it”.

  • Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress know that the Obama administration has been trying to undermine and underfund the development of the SLS right from the start. That’s why Congress keeps callin’ them out on this over and over and over again!

    The Obama administration never wanted a heavy lift vehicle nor a beyond LEO program. Even before he became President, Obama argued that he’d rather spend NASA beyond LEO funds on social programs. At least Lori Garver admitted that she thought the SLS should be canceled once she left the administration– which is probably what Obama and Holdren also believe.

    They’re not foolin’ anybody!

    Unfortunately, the administration’s anti-beyond LEO antics have also undermined full financial support for their Commercial Crew development LEO program in Congress.

    Marcel

    • Robert G. Oler

      Marcel what action, by the administration has caused the situation we have now?

      other then your mantra of deorbit ISS and spend that money on something else…what has the administration done to make SLS behind schedule? RGO

    • Hiram

      “Unfortunately, the administration’s anti-beyond LEO antics have also undermined full financial support for their Commercial Crew development LEO program in Congress.”

      That’s a stretch. CC development was to be well funded in the budget proposal by the Administration, and Congress docked it. Take a bow, Congress. The only “antics” that undermined CC were those of Congress.

    • Vladislaw

      Marcel, how many times has President Obama threatened the House and Senate that he was going to veto any bill that provides MORE funding for SLS?

      Please provide a link for the quote or the video where the President has made the veto threat.

      Please provide the links for the House and Senate funding bills for the SLS that provided MORE funding and that funding increase was thwarted by the President ..

      Put up .. or FINALLY .. shut up about how THIS President controls ANY aspect of the Republican, just say no to everything, house of representatives and the minority Republican ‘just fillibuster everything’ Senate.

      This President has absolutely no power to enforce anything… He is to the point of governing by executive order because NOTHING of his gets through congress.

      • I provided the links. Read them! The President presented budgets that attempted to reduce SLS funding– claiming that the SLS would still being appropriately funded at lower levels. The Senate called him out on it! That’s just the facts. And I watched the hearings and the lame excuses from the administration.

        Both Democrats and Republicans have been hostile towards Obama’s space policies. And so have the overwhelming majority of NASA astronauts. President Obama and Holdren have very little interest in a beyond LEO program for NASA. And pretending that they do is just a fantasy!

        Marcel

        • Vladislaw

          The President presents a NON BINDING budget.. get that through you head. It absolutely doesn’t matter what the President puts in a budget. Especially with the congress he has been delt.

          So the Senate called him out on it and the house .. so? Did they increase funds for the SLS? Give all the funding it needed? What EXACTLY stopped the congress from funding the SLS at ANY level they chose?

          Please show the links were the President threated to VETO any spending about his budget request?

          • Coastal Ron

            Funny how little some folks know about how their government works. Not knowing that Congress write the spending bills, and the President can only approve them or veto them…

            But they have to ignore reality in order to pretend that Obama is the one to blame for perceived funding shortfalls – they can’t blame Congress, since otherwise they have no hope that Congress will actually take an interesting in funding something useful for the SLS to do.

            And regardless what politicians say, it only matters what they do, and the loud message they have sent so far is that they are OK with sort of funding the SLS, but don’t care about actually using it.

            7 years until the SLS is supposed to be operational. Time is running out…

        • Vladislaw

          When a BI PARTISAN congress, refused to fund the CONstellation program was that “Both Democrats and Republicans have been hostile towards Obama’s space policies”?

          The GAO is saying, along with Booz Allen and some members of congress, that the SLS program is going to be under funded and needs more funding.

          Why hasn’t all these congression members that you say are all so pro space, not calling for HUGE increases in NASA funding? Why Marcel? Is the President calling the shots for the republicans in the house?

  • Chaz

    It should be pointed out here that from what I’ve heard SLS itself on schedule. Orion on the other hand is both overweight (for reentry not launch) and using a 10 year old design that has been rendered obsolete by newer SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Corp, and Boeing spacecraft. Also ESA, which is building Orion’s Service Module, also needs more time. As such a decision is expected soon to postpone the first launch of SLS/Orion to September 2018 to give the Orion program more time to resolve its issues.

    Keep in mind please that NASA/humanity will be using these rockets and spacecraft for the next thirty years at least for missions in both low Earth Orbit (LEO) and beyond. A year’s delay in the grand scheme of things does not matter that much in my opinion.

    • Hiram

      “A year’s delay in the grand scheme of things does not matter that much in my opinion.”

      Someone should tell that to Palazzo and Smith in House Science. They’re the ones that are upset about the delays, and blaming those delays firmly on the Administration. In fact, the 2010 NASA authorization bill that started the whole SLS mess posed a “goal” for completion of 2016, but never gave any justification for a time limit. If the authorizers needed SLS to be done by a certain time then they should have said it then.

    • Vladislaw

      Chaz wrote:
      “It should be pointed out here that from what I’ve heard SLS itself on schedule.”

      Where did you hear it? Can you provide links?

      If not you can read what the GAO has to say about the SLS and being on schedule.

      http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664969.pdf

      http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663071.pdf

      • Chaz

        “Where did you hear it? Can you provide links?”

        I base this statement on the following:

        SLS Core stage completing its Critical Design Review (CDR) in July
        (http://www.nasa.gov/sls/core-stage-review-2014.html#.VACwCfldWPs)

        The five segment Solid Rocket Booster completing its CDR in August
        (http://www.nasa.gov/sls/sls-boosters-cdr.html#.VACvxfldWPs)

        Michoud facility in New Orleans, La has begun production of SLS. Three cores are in production: They the Static Test Article (STA) for testing at Marshall, the Ground Test Article (GTA) for testing at Stennis, and the Flight Test Article (FTA) for flight at Kennedy.

        (The first URL above plus pictures of production posted on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NASASLS?fref=nf)

        And lots more.

        I am aware of the GAO audit but my opinion is that SLS is in production and will be ready for whatever task is assigned to it long before Orion is.

        • Vladislaw

          ooohhh my apologies … NASA says they are on schedule … gosh .. we all know we can take that to bank.

          Remind me .. has NASA ever said they were on track .. but every other goverment watch dog agency says they are not and turned out to be correct and NASA was wrong?

          What are we seeing now? GAO, CBO, OIG Booz Allen etc .. saying they are going to fall short of funding and the schedule will take a hit.

          • Chaz

            Believe whoever you want but I will listen to the engineers and program mangers working on SLS day after day over some auditor every-time.

            • Coastal Ron

              Chaz said:

              …but I will listen to the engineers and program mangers working on SLS day after day…

              The engineers have no clue what the total costs of the program are. No clue at all because it’s not their job to have that type of information.

              Program managers would know, but since NASA is a government agency that works for the President but must answer to Congress, NASA will say whatever makes the most political sense for them to say. And that is the same in every agency, not just NASA.

              …over some auditor every-time.

              You think program managers have an incentive to be honest? I’m not sure you’ve ever worked with a program manager before.

              The GAO is the only government entity that can be trusted, if such a thing exists in our government. Their charter is to be non-biased, and to just report the facts as they discerned them to be. If you don’t like the facts, then don’t shoot the messenger.

            • Vladislaw

              Of all the agencies in the federal government, which agency, has been the poster child, for the last TWENTY YEARS as the agency MOST LIKELY to bust their budgets and never come in on schedule.

              Make a WILD guess, Chaz, which agency do you believe is the absolutely, most likely to do that?

              Did you say NASA?

              So the agency that breaks the most budgets, kills the most schedules THAT is what you are going to take to the bank .. that agency.

              “The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to invest billions of dollars in the coming years to explore space, understand Earth’s environment, and conduct aeronautics research. GAO has designated NASA’s acquisition management as high risk in view of NASA’s history of persistent cost growth and schedule slippage in the majority of its major projects. GAO’s work has identified a number of causal factors, including antiquated financial management systems, poor cost estimating, and underestimating risks associated with the development of its major systems. This area was added to GAO’s High Risk List in 1990.”

              http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/nasa/why_did_study

              Just keep your head in the sand Chaz…. LOL

              • Hiram

                “Of all the agencies in the federal government, which agency, has been the poster child, for the last TWENTY YEARS as the agency MOST LIKELY to bust their budgets and never come in on schedule.”

                In all fairness, you could ask which agency is tasked with doing things that are at the technological cutting edge.

                In all fairness, you really ought to include DOD. F-35 overruns and schedule busting far exceed that of SLS.

                That being the case, it still is remarkable how unforgiving Congress is about NASA cost overruns. Congress looks at buying NASA projects like it looks at buying a car off the lot. That being the case, Congress ought to take cost estimation for such ambitious plans with a big grain of salt. The idea that we’ll have a technology-straining mega-launcher in 7.00 years for a promised amount of cash is just nuts. Apollo could promise such a product at a given time because it was promised a very flexible and uncapped budget. If you want to make delivery date promises for cutting edge technology items, you’re going to pay dearly for it. Get used to it.

                So the bottom line is that SLS isn’t on schedule. So what? Who are we trying to beat? The congressional GOP wants to use that fact to beat on the administration, deftly avoiding their ownership of the problem. That beating is a lot easier than coming up with a rationale for SLS, which is a subject that Congress doesn’t want to touch with a ten foot pole.

              • Vladislaw

                I could be more forgiving in certain areas, probles for the most part. But human spaceflight? forget it, since Apollo ended it has been a barrel of pork for congressional members representing NASA centers.

                I would like to see NASA space act more like NASA Aeronautics.

            • Robert G. Oler

              really? Why ? RGO

            • common sense

              Chaz if you want to do any business you better start listening to those auditors be it in government or the industry. Why do you think we have auditors in the first place?

              Oh well…

    • Agreed. Given the ADD of our NASA leadership I’d be impressed if they could focus on the same plan for another year.

      • Hiram

        I guess their ADD is a symptom of congressional FDD (fiscal deficit disorder). You can give a lot of attention to a project that is starving for money, but that’s not going to make it go any faster. Congress provides neither enough dollars nor policy leadership for human space flight. No surprise that the White House wants to wash their hands of it. Yep, Congress wants an SLS and MPCV, but won’t tell anyone what they’re going to use them for, except as vehicles for spending loads of federal dollars.

    • Although I’m certainly no fan of the Orion, you’re still going to need a capsule with a heat shield capable of dealing with the high frictional velocities of traveling from lunar orbit or from a Lagrange point through the Earth’s atmosphere. None of the commercial vehicles being developed would have the appropriate amount of heat shielding. But the Orion is clearly going to be the most overly expensive capsule in the history of the universe. There really should be a Congressional investigation as to why this capsule cost so much, IMO.

      The Constellation philosophy of using a heavy lift vehicle– only as a cargo vehicle– should have been adopted for the SLS program. The Orion money could have spent on developing a reusable lunar landing vehicle that could also be used as an orbital transfer vehicle. Commercial crew vehicles could then be used to shuttle astronauts from Earth to the orbital transfer vehicle.

      Marcel

      • Will

        Elon Musk has stated publicly that the Dragon V2’s heat shield is designed for Mars return already. SLS (or 2 Falcon Heavy rockets) could lift the service module and all the rest of what is needed, and then Dragon V2 could dock with all of it and head off to Mars. Dragon is smaller than Orion, but just make the service module a bit bigger.

      • common sense

        See Marcel. I understand not every one needs to be an ED&L specialist but this sentence “a capsule with a heat shield capable of dealing with the high frictional velocities”. I believe you should at least make an effort to understand what you are trying to say after so many years in this anyway. Understanding the physics of what you are trying to accomplish even at 1st order will help you understand why most of what you are trying to accomplish never will.

        Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed

      • Vladislaw

        Why do you constantly do this Marcel .. you know damn well that PICA-X is enough .. you have been told and posted links on it for freakin’ years… but here you go .. repeating the same tired nonsense “gosh I didn’t know that” your puppet dance is getting so old.

        Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Twitter

        Dragon’s PICA-X heat shield protected the spacecraft during reentry from temperatures reaching more than 3,000 degrees F. SpaceX worked closely with NASA to develop PICA-X, a SpaceX variant of NASA’s Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) heat shield.

        SpaceX chose PICA for its proven ability. In January 2006, NASA’s Stardust sample capsule returned using a PICA heat shield and set the record for the fastest reentry speed of a spacecraft into Earth’s atmosphere — experiencing speeds of 28,900 miles per hour.

        NASA made its expertise and specialized facilities available to SpaceX as the company designed, developed and qualified the 3.6 meter PICA-X shield it in less than 4 years at a fraction of the cost NASA had budgeted for the effort. The result is the most advanced heat shield ever to fly. It can potentially be used hundreds of times for Earth orbit reentry with only minor degradation each time — as proven on this flight — and can even withstand the much higher heat of a moon or Mars velocity reentry.”

        http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/04/pica-heat-shield

  • Garp Newton

    Keep in mind please that NASA/humanity will be using these rockets and spacecraft for the next thirty years at least for missions in both low Earth Orbit (LEO) and beyond. A year’s delay in the grand scheme of things does not matter that much in my opinion.

    The decades of using the same launch systemfor thirty years for any kind of mission have been over for a few years now. That is a completely unrealistic assumption, especially for an expendable rocket of the cost and size of the SLS. It’s done over.

    • Chaz

      Really, on what do you base this assumption? The Russian Soyuz (R-7) rocket has been in use for over fifty years and could serve for fifty more. The American Centaur upper stage has been in service since at least the early to mid sixty’s and is still used today as the second stage of the Atlas 5. And the Space Shuttle’s served for thirty years and could have served for many more years before their space frames reached End-of-Life (EOL)

      Also we do not know how much SLS will cost to operate. NASA, Boeing, and ATK (along with SpaceX) are reinventing the “wheel” of how rockets are produced and operated. This is being done to lower the cost of spaceflight and make it affordable. Give them a chance to prove the new “wheel” works.

      • Garp Newton

        I base this on the demonstrable facts that SpaceX has produced major revisions of both their launcher and engine in three years flat, has proposed a triple core version using a brand new cross feed capability that is close to flying, and has already successfully demonstrated actual safe landing of the booster on a wavy liquid surface (the ocean).

        Not only that, they have embarked on a new much larger engine development project using a entirely different fuel and a new engine cycle (full flow gas generator staged combustion, or some variant yet to be determined). You just can’t make this stuff up.

        We know how much NASA (as in the US government, as in you) has sunk into the development of the SLS. Tens of billions of dollars and a full decade. And it has not yet flown. And now you are proposing to continue to build and fly it which will take another decade and another tens of billions of dollars based upon flimsy evidence. NASA, Boeing and ATK already knows how the new wheel works. It works with large clusters of multiple much smaller liquid engines, scaled up to much larger clusters of much larger liquid engines and vehicle cores. Since they do not seem to be able to produce these products, they have elected to milk the predetermined SLS for everything that it’s worth before literally being forced to upgrade their products, or possibly giving up on the new commercial reusable launch vehicle industry completely. Unless they can find a new smaller methane or hydrogen engine supplier or embark on building one or more themselves, this is probably the inevitable conclusion.

        The shuttle was cancelled for precisely these same reasons. It cost too much and was deemed unsafe. However, when Bush cancelled the SLI these people offered possible reusable engine and launch vehicle designs in the twenty billion dollar range, and congress immediately declared these costs wholly unacceptable, and then immediately blew that same amount in a decade on an expendable system that never even launched, and will require another twenty billion dollars and a decade to reach that capability.

        I am not surprised at this result in the least bit and predicted this would happen. What I did not predict was that is would happen twice in a row over a full decade.

        • and has already successfully demonstrated actual safe landing of the booster on a wavy liquid surface (the ocean).

          I’m puzzled. Why do you think Musk focuses on the relatively simple task of vertical landing, but avoids the pitch over and fly back maneuver on which his scheme depends?

          • Vladislaw

            So that when he DOES finally do the pitch over maneuver … he will actually be prepared to land it.

          • Hiram

            Same reason that ULA avoids it with their Atlas launchers. Because he’s not ready to do it. But he’s a whole lot more ready than ULA is!

            Keep trying. It’s entertaining.

      • Vladislaw

        Chaz wrote:

        “Also we do not know how much SLS will cost to operate.”

        That would be freakin’ hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

        We are spending
        BILLIONS and …
        BILLIONS and …
        BILLIONS and?

        We do not know how much it will cost to operate? LOL gawd …

      • common sense

        “Also we do not know how much SLS will cost to operate.”

        Really? Who is “we”?

        Well here

        http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

        May I suggest Chaz you start learning rather than just “listening”.

  • Von Del

    “NASA/humanity will be using these rockets and spacecraft for the next thirty years”

    Its more likely that NASA/humanity wont be able to do a real planetary mission for another thirty years-remember manned Mars landing sometime after the 2030s (I wonder if I’ll make it to 95). NASA has no need for the Orion as its redundant with either Dragon or CST, and even then its questionable why anyone would want a throwaway Mars mission. There is a lot missing that is needed: the long duration hab, the lander, a sortie vehicle….NASA hasn’t thought any of this out and is focusing on things, wasting money and time on things that are not needed.

    • Chaz

      “NASA has no need for the Orion as its redundant with either Dragon or CST”

      This is debatable. Dragon as it exists today is useful only for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Ops. It would require a significant redesign to go further. At the very least the heat shield would require a substantial upgrade.

      “and even then its questionable why anyone would want a throwaway Mars mission”

      Throwaway? Everything I’ve heard out of NASA over the last year is that except for the rocket and Orion’s Service Module everything launched into space for Human Spaceflight will stay up there and e reused by future crews.

      “There is a lot missing that is needed: the long duration hab, the lander, a sortie vehicle….NASA hasn’t thought any of this out and is focusing on things, wasting money and time on things that are not needed.”

      The long duration hub is being worked on, just quietly as there is no official funding for it. I had heard early last year that NASA had requested funding for such a hub from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) but they chose to request money from Congress for the Asteroid Redirect Mission instead. Lander technology is being worked on, look up Project Morpheus. Please define sortie vehicle. You mean a rover?

      NASA is thinking these things thru and plenty more. You would not believe the amount of R&D going on at NASA right now. It is all part of the very complicated jigsaw puzzle of going Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) for the first time in forty plus years and doing so in a way that is sustainable and affordable. That takes time.

      • Vladislaw

        So NASA is going to build a reusable EDS and a fuel depot? Reusable landers? Orion is not even reusable.

      • common sense

        Okay Chaz I hate to do that to you but do you really believe what you write?

        “Dragon as it exists today is useful only for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Ops. It would require a significant redesign to go further. At the very least the heat shield would require a substantial upgrade.”

        Absolutely false. Dragon would require as it stands today the proper ECLSS and some form of an SM. And that’s about it.

        “Everything I’ve heard out of NASA over the last year is that except for the rocket and Orion’s Service Module everything launched into space for Human Spaceflight will stay up there and e reused by future crews.”

        What?!?!?! “Except for the rocket and Orion”? Really so let’s waste what $4 billion for each launch and that is okay according to you. Furthermore the rest of your statement is plain wrong.

        “The long duration hub is being worked on, just quietly as there is no official funding for it.”

        What???? Really!?? Well it is illegal to work on something without budget. So NASA is working, illegally, on vaporwear? Really?

        “I had heard early last year that NASA had requested funding for such a hub from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) but they chose to request money from Congress for the Asteroid Redirect Mission instead.”

        OMB provides money for NASA? You are not really serious now are you.

        “NASA is thinking these things thru and plenty more. You would not believe the amount of R&D going on at NASA right now. It is all part of the very complicated jigsaw puzzle of going Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) for the first time in forty plus years and doing so in a way that is sustainable and affordable. That takes time.”

        Going BLEO as you put it is not complicated whatsoever especially the Moon and vicinity. This is a huge pile of nonsense. And no there is no R&D being done at NASA on these topics since there is no budget to address any of that. Any significant enough budget.

        It seems to me you are not very serious. You need to do a lot more research and then come back with links and numbers because all this is is “tinkerbell” talk. Sorry.

  • Egad

    There is a lot missing that is needed: the long duration hab, the lander, a sortie vehicle….NASA hasn’t thought any of this out and is focusing on things, wasting money and time on things that are not needed.

    Au contraire, there is considerable evidence that NASA has thought it out, concluded that the necessary missing things can’t be afforded on projected budgets, and is trying to put the best face on what it has been forced to do by Congress, i.e. SLS/Orion. Perhaps they’re hoping that more money will be available in the future.

    • Jim Nobles

      …NASA has thought it out, concluded that the necessary missing things can’t be afforded on projected budgets, and is trying to put the best face on what it has been forced to do by Congress, i.e. SLS/Orion. Perhaps they’re hoping that more money will be available in the future.

      I think that’s exactly what’s going on. But I would add that NASA is a big agency and they are plenty of people in it that luv SLS like a big giant fussy teddy bear from their childhood. Which, for some of them, it probably sort of is.

  • Robert G. Oler

    What “I” find amazing is that anyone is “shocked” that another big ticket NASA program (or two of them) is floundering…it is not like NASA has a solid track record of doing these programs well or even defining them well…

    What will be interesting to see is how the politics of all this develop. particularly in the 16 presidential campaign. there is a populist streak (or maybe two fo them ) forming in the US RGO

    • Vladislaw

      The mistake congress made with the CONstellation program was NASA was allowed to show the numbers.

      As booz allen complained there was no paperwork with numbers that allowed them to make any long term predictions, and as NASA has been doing .. no accurate numbers and are non existant for SLS runout

  • In the meantime, even NASASpaceFlight.com is conceding that SLS may have problems coming to fruition before SpaceX’s Raptor powered BFR in an article called “Battle of the Heavyweight Rockets – SLS could face Exploration Class rival”: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/battle-heavyweight-rockets-sls-exploration-rival/

    This is the same Chris Bergin who, when I made similar arguments early this year in “Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA’s Rocket to Nowhere” ( http://www.space.com/24628-will-spacex-kill-nasa-sls.html )called my article “A piece of crap op-ed” here:
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34002.105

    He seems to be at the beginning of an epiphany.

    • common sense

      Well some people will have an epiphany especially those whose budget comes to an end soon. And soon it is coming.

      All those people daydreaming the next WH will somehow come up with more printed dollars to support a Congress program that Congress itself does not support.

    • Hiram

      Well, for an editor of “nasaspaceflight.com”, maybe it hurts a bit when space flight isn’t NASA. There are a bunch of space flight blogs/websites that are nasa-this and nasa-that, as if NASA is as meaningful as it used to be with regard to spaceflight. In fact, that’s an interesting piece of astro-psychology, that space flight had come to be synonymous with NASA. I’m in no way being critical of the agency or these websites. Just that NASA is not as much of a space flight leader and flag carrier as it used to be. There are some who find that fact simply intolerable.

      • common sense

        It actually is pretty annoying to have a conversation that revolves most of the time around the NASA cult members vs the SpaceX cult members.

        Note that for some odd reason most anyone else in the space business is curiously exempt from this ridiculous fight.

    • Robert G. Oler

      or the beginning of the end :)

      The country will be “lucky” to get to Falcon 9 heavy and it work…there are two things maybe three at play

      First SpaceX has got to get their flight rate up. The company cannot survive on the prices it is charging with a flight rate that it has right now. More over if they do not get their flight rate up, which means the ability to point and shoot there will be no market available for “1 a week” on a resuable first stage (or the Falcon 9H) BECAUSE the shift in cost has to fuel a shift in satellite cost which will then bring a wider market.

      Second there is no money and its unlikely to develop anytime soon for the cost even a “cheap” outside Earth orbit effort requires. Lets say with better launch cost and Bigelow modules on a SpaceX style contract we could get a lunar base for 8 for say 1/10th of the Station…thats 2X billion …and that might be possible when SpaceX (or if) they get their launch cost “down” but right now thats not possible. It is ludicrious to even think that the US government is going to have money for a 10 billion dollar worth payload for SLS every two years…not to mention the launch cost.

      Third…the technology for a “long trip” is still somewhere in the future.

      In the end the best that we can hope for, and should insist on , is the development of a space industry that drives 1) launch cost down and 2) space operations cost down. SLS and Orion go the other direction.

      Robert G. Oler

      • Fred Willett

        SpaceX seem to be moving along OK at getting their flight rate up. There was only a short gap between the Orb Com launch and SES 8 and they were on a 22 day turn around for SES 6 before F9R-Dev 1 failed.
        When you look at the historical ramp up of Atlas V flight rate the F9 flight rate seems to be doing OK.(much better than Atlas did). LV customers will be well aware of how long it takes to really ramp up a new LV and won’t be disappointed at SpaceX’s progress. i.e. 6 launches in the last 12 months. Nor will they be upset at SpaceX calling a stand down to review corner cases in their software. Better safe than sorry.
        2nd point about costs of BEO. It all depends on SpaceX getting reusability. That’s the big unknown. SpaceX needs to make reusability work to allow any sort of future BEO. SLS isn’t going to do it. Besides I think it’s fair to discount SLS because even if they get it launched the projected flight rate is so slow as to be meaningless.
        Point 3. Long trip technology. That is a big catch. But if SpaceX can achieve reusability and you have cheap reusable F9s and Dragons and a cheap reusable in space stage based on a Raptor powered upper stage (Which I think where SpaceX is really going with its Raptor engine) then you have the basis to go anywhere. Private companies could well fill in the gaps with ECLSS and shielding technologies quite rapidly. Especially if the first targets are lunar exploration where the demands are relatively simple.
        Bottom lione. I think there is hope.
        If SpaceX can drop prices and Bigelow can attract customers then there’s a really good market that will potentially open flood gates.

        • Robert G. Oler

          Fred

          I hope that you are correct. I am not “concerned” but am “interested” because I dont think that the company is financially viable until they get the flight rate up

          I agree with everything else you wrote; what high flight rates do is change the space industry and how satellites are built…that makes a big difference. Robert

  • vulture4

    “Note that for some odd reason most anyone else in the space business is curiously exempt from this ridiculous fight.”

    XCOR, Scaled/Virgin, Sierra Nevada,some parts of Boeing (X-37, CST) and others have ideas which are basically competitive with SLS/Orion. They just aren’t as noticable as SoaceX. The frontrunner naturally gets the flac. If the FH comes on line soon it just may change Congress’ view of SLS.

    As to NASASpaceFlight.com, on the plus side there’s a lot there. On the minus side they quashed my conversation on potential collaboration with China without explanation after a mere seven replies.

    • Jim Nobles

      I have had several of my posts there deleted for what appeared to me to be no adequate reason. I let my subscription to L2 lapse and don’t intend to participate there again. I don’t recommend that site unless you’re willing to put up with a great deal of nonsense. That “night gator” poster made it a unpleasant experience for me. It just wasn’t worth it.

      • Fred Willett

        I think you need to cut the guys on NASASpaceflight.com some slack. A lot of them are hampered by conventional wisdom. They ‘know’ what Musk is doing in impossible. Just as serious scientists all knew that heavier than air flight was impossible.
        I was reading a post over there this morning and someone said
        I hear people say, but it’s reusable so it will be cheap! Well, they haven’t reused even a single stage from an EELV class rocket, so that’s not proven yet. We literally don’t have the information to tell if that is cheaper yet.
        Technically he’s right. But wow, it’s hard to think of something more expensive if it’s reused (maybe explosives?) while examples of things that are cheapen when reused leap to mind. Shoes, bikes, cars, planes, ipads, ships, roads, bridges, well just about anything really.
        The ‘not proven yet’ argument is pendantic in the extreme but all to common among denizens of that site. Leave them to strain at their gnats and swallow their camels.

      • Andrew Swallow

        Jim the “night gator” makes it bad for many people. He and I have been banned from commenting on each others posts.

      • Paul Scutts

        Completely agree, Jim. Somebody recommended L2 to me. I paid money to join and expressed my opinion several times. One of my posts was deleted and took the Administrator to task only to be politely told it was “policy”. Subsequently, had a conversation with Chris Bergin, we agreed to part ways and had my money fully refunded. You can express any opinion you like on L2 so long as it’s Chris’s.

        • Neil

          Hi Paul. I’m on L2 and have found that there’s minimal censorship provided one stays on topic. Of course, there’s mobs of non-SpaceX stuff on there that makes it worthwhile if you have a broad interest in space.
          Cheers.

          • Coastal Ron

            I know we’re really veering off topic here, but just wanted to say that I post regularly on NSF, and am on L2 too. I’ve also had a few posts deleted, but from what I can tell it’s was part of a trimming because a number of us had veered off topic (yes, Mr. Foust, I see the irony).

            But though I originally thought I’d be one of the lone voices for SpaceX, it turns out that is no longer the situation, and there is a robust number of people that can talk rationally about SpaceX, as well as rationally about SLS and other topics (quite a few irrationally, but you can’t escape that).

            I see it as a complement to Space Politics though, not a replacement.

            My $0.02

        • Paul Scutts

          Neil and Ron, Don’t misunderstand me, I thought L2 was good. Before certain posts of mine were deleted by Chris, an administrator suggested that I alter the wording of one of my posts. I ignored the “suggestion” because my post conveyed exactly they way I felt on the subject. I don’t remember the wording now, but, it neither contained any bad language nor was it aggressive or abusive. Then I noticed that the administrator went ahead and changed the wording to some wishy washy, nondescript verbiage. I was peeved and that was how it all began. I viewed it as censorship and stated as much to the administrator, who apologised, and Chris Bergan, who was, IMO, recalcitrant. I like Jeff’s blogs. You/We can have robust discussions, like in Congress (on topic), with minimal interference from “he who must be obeyed”. Chris, IMO, could learn a lot from Jeff, but, probably never will.

  • numbers_guy101

    The future of NASA and space exploration will be decided by who has the power to draw NASA budgets. The congressmen here just want to pull more money away from competing programs, while not being accused of spending more by anti-government spending constituents. These congressmen have no interest in space exploration, stunts, sustainable or otherwise. They have become defined by what they are against, trying to shut down climate science and grab those funds, using space exploration advocates as an excuse. Trying to end low Earth orbit funds like ISS is where the infighting among these otherwise likeminded and narrow interests in NASA, as just jobs, showed, by chance, an opportunity for new ways of thinking. This is the battle we are in.

    • E.P. Grondine

      Hi numbers –

      Their object here is to blame it on Obama.

      Its what they want the voters to believe, and they can sell that line until the bs stops, and the voters have to take a hard look at what has really happened to them.

      Its right about that time right now.

      “The future of NASA and space exploration will be decided by who has the power to draw NASA budgets.”

      Actually, ultimately the voters decide what NASA will do.

      For all the ink spilled about Apollo, few people know about Trevor Gardiner, and fewer mention him.

      You are forgetting the next impactor.
      It is the deciding factor, and politically its power is absolute.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Spending a little bit of time this Labor Day NOT laboring and catching up on some professional reading

    There is a fascinating story in TheWeek (which I link on my facebook page for anyone who is interested) about some calculations that might be going on in China about the US military…and much the same thing could be said in my view about the US space program

    the US space program which mirrors the country fairly well is, like the country exhausted not only in its notions of what it does, but what its role is…there is almost no thinking outside the box anymore and it is incapable of even executing “doctrine” thinking. SLS and Orion are in good examples of that.

    but so is the notion that the signature effort of NASA with humans must be “exploration”

    there are lots of reasons for this…none of them anything but troubling but…if you want to fear for the uture of the US as a superpower…RGO

    • E.P. Grondine

      Hi RGO –

      Often times you do not get a choice as to what your role will be.

    • amightywind

      like the country exhausted not only in its notions of what it does, but what its role is

      The country isn’t exhausted so much as dazed and disappointed by a feckless political leadership that is. America has now gone years underperforming its economic potential. The prescription for reform is the same as it was when Reagan took office. End fed manipulation (raise interest rates), Reform the tax system, slash non-defense spending. Crank up military spending. Arm the enemies of Russia and China. Watch Russia and China slink back into their holes.

    • Hiram

      “… but so is the notion that the signature effort of NASA with humans must be ‘exploration’ ”

      We should be careful here. The signature effort of NASA these days with humans is indeed space exploration, but just not with astronauts. We’re sending human inquisitiveness and curiosity across the solar system, putting the minds of our engineers and scientists in places where they could never go physically.

      But then, what about astronauts? That’s where that old standard-bearer word “exploration” now fails dramatically. Fifty years ago, we couldn’t imagine that failure happening. But the spectacular development of robotics, telerobotics, and communication technologies made it happen. Welcome to the future.

      As a result, the new NASA code word for a signature effort is “pioneering”. Several recent high-level essays coming out of HEOMD highlight that word. Yep, that’s a word that you just can’t do robotically. It implies colonization and settlement, and feeling the dirt in your toes. It’s a word that is immune to replacement by technology development. It’s a word that safely demands astronauts.

      But here’s the rub. “Pioneering” is not a word that is used, or even hinted at, in the Space Act, which charters NASA. Of course, human space flight isn’t explicitly referred to there either. NASA, at least, isn’t chartered to do pioneering. So HEOMD is in the uncomfortable position of self-chartering.

      So this country has to decide if our role in space really is “pioneering”, and if it is, then charter NASA to work towards it. Of course, “pioneering”, like “exploration” is a good-feeling word, sort of like “love” and “teamwork”. It just can’t be perceived as a bad thing. But like “love” and “teamwork”, it’s not clear that it’s something that our nation really should be investing in. Whether it is something that Elon Musk wants to invest in is up to him. I think it would be marvelous if he did.

  • Vladislaw

    Jeff, congrats on the new job at Space News, does this mean the end of space politics?

  • Coastal Ron

    Exciting news and sad news all:

    Veteran Space Journalist Jeff Foust Joins SpaceNews | SpaceNews.com

    Congrats to Jeff!

    The one sad part of news though:

    For more than 10 years, Foust also operated Space Politics, a Web-based blog devoted to space policy topics; his commercial space blog, NewSpace Journal, started more than eight years ago. The sites will no longer be updated, but their archives will remain available indefinitely.

    It was great was it lasted.

    Thank you Jeff

  • common sense

    Jeff,

    It’s been a real pleasure to interact on this forum with fellow Space Politics enthusiasts for all those years.

    Congrats on the new opportunity!

  • Andrew Swallow

    Good luck with the new job.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jeff Congratulations RGO

  • Space Politics gone? Then this is amightywind signing off. Catch my continuing wisdom at slashdot.

  • GOOD LUCK and Congrats to Jeff Foust joining SpaceNews best of times to you.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Congratulations on finding a real job.

    Here’s a cheat sheet to help you through the next few years:

    The responses to ARM always serve as as Rorsarch tests clearly showing different space enthusiasts desires.

    “Any defensible calculation of tangible, quantifiable benefits – spinoff technologies,attraction of talent to scientific careers, scientific knowledge, and so on – is unlikely to ever demonstrate a positive return on the massive investments required by human spaceflight.”

    This does not hold true for planetary defense from asteroid and comet impact.

    ARM is the first effort to tie manned spaceflight to planetary defense. After the $8 billion taken from the NASA budget for the Ares 1, it is a recovery attempt.

    ARM revives Goldin’s DPT architecture. ARM gives you systems for deep space travel.

    Thee key here is that ARM finances the NEO search, because every time money has been spent on search the realization has increased that the impact hazard is far greater than previously estimated.

    Now your best impactor detection system is CAPS, which uses active detectors based on the Moon. CAPS gives you sustainable manned systems.

    My guess is that China will try for manned Moon landing in 2020-2025, with a base (CAPS) to follow 2025-2030. While they still have to make any of those decisions, given the budget for their architecture and national desires, my guess is it will be a go.

    ARM is probably the best way to keep the tech base in place while recovering from the Ares 1 fiasco.

    What is amazing to me is that none of you have thought about using SpaceX tech to match a Chinese manned Moon effort 2020-2025.

    As there is a back-contamination problem for manned Mars flight which needs to be cleared, 2035 looks likely as the earliest possible window.

  • BRC

    Jeff
    Congratulations!! Looking forward to checking our your new e-digs wiht SN! I confess, I’ll miss this forum’s lively, sometimes over-excited, discussions/bantering, as much as the more thoughtful informative logical ones.

    Again, Congrats, and Keep on High-Fly’n!!

  • Congrats on the job!

    Thank you for maintaining this blog, it has been one of my favorites for a long time.

  • John Malkin

    Congratulations Jeff! Thank you for your time here.

  • James

    Congrats to you Jeff.

    Nothing last forever. Neither NASA, or Spacepolitics.com

    Will miss reading the musings and comments of some of the best minds in the space industry.
    Bye all.

  • Jim Nobles

    I hope you do well Jeff.

    Goodbye sane people. Goodbye crazy people. Goodbye normal people. :)

  • nom de plume

    I’m going to miss this site, Jeff’s blog and all you who offer a mix of facts and opinions about space, past, present and future. SpaceNews will benefit with Jeff’s style, and I’m looking forward trying to keep up.

  • Neil

    All the best Jeff. Will miss this site, truly unique. :(
    Cheers,

  • So is this when Jeff finally comes out of the closet and admits he’s actually amightywind just to stir things up and increase traffic? :-)

    Already in mourning for the loss of my favorite blog.

  • Paul Scutts

    Jeff,

    Oh man, just when I had found a great site with excellent content and a fine bunch of bloggers, everything has to go and change. That’s life, I suppose.

    If I joined the others in congratulating you and wishing you all the best, I really would not be telling the truth.

    If things don’t work out and sometimes, Jeff, they don’t, you could always get the gang back together. :)

  • Dark Blue Nine

    This blog was started (or the archives go back to) the same month that the Vision for Space Exploration was released. It is now sadly fitting that the last two posts on this blog are still dealing with yet another, year-odd delay on yet another hyper-expensive, fragile, Shuttle-derived launch vehicle. Unbelievably, more than ten years and billions of taxpayer dollars later, the nation’s space exploration hopes are still hamstrung by the very kind of launch system that the VSE tried to avoid by directing NASA to shut down STS and leverage commercial providers. Too bad everyone from Griffin to Nelson couldn’t read for comprehension.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same. Maybe some day, we will learn.

    Until then — and until Mr. Foust gets a new blog rolling at SpaceNews — I’ll get my fix of civil human space flight dysfunction by rereading old rocketsandsuch.blogspot entries.

    A sincere thanks and all the best for Mr. Foust. Take care.

    • Crash Davis

      “This blog was started (or the archives go back to) the same month that the Vision for Space Exploration was released. It is now sadly fitting that the last two posts on this blog are still dealing with yet another, year-odd delay on yet another hyper-expensive, fragile, Shuttle-derived launch vehicle”

      It is actually phenomenal that the uneducated, uninformed, cynical, blind space exploration know-nothings will no longer have a forum to bloviate on topics they have no zero expertise on and will have to find real jobs and not waste our time reading their myopic fantasies.

      Good luck Jeff. All the best in your new endeavors.

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “It is actually phenomenal that the uneducated, uninformed, cynical, blind space exploration know-nothings”

      I’ve worked in space program oversight and management for going on two decades. I have advanced degrees in the field. Your background and expertise is in what?

      “will no longer have a forum to bloviate on topics”

      The record speaks for itself. We’ve spent over a decade pursuing Ares I/Orion and SLS/MPCV, and we’re no closer to a new civil human space flight system, forget an actual human space exploration mission, than we were in 2004. And SLS/MPCV just slipped another year.

      That’s not “bloviating”. It’s just the facts.

      “not waste our time reading their myopic fantasies.”

      Where did I express any personal “fantasy”? And since when is expecting NASA and its political apparatus to be able to execute the first couple steps in the VSE and at least do what it did five decades ago “myopic”?

      I’m sorry your STS religion is failing (yet again), but turn that anger in the right direction. I’m just the messenger.

  • Rhyolite

    Jeff,

    Thanks for all of the wonderful posts. Good luck on the new job. I’m going to miss this site and its cast of characters.

    Best Regards

  • MrEarl

    Thanks for providing this blog where civil discourse was always the order of the day!

    Oh my! I’m surprised I got that out with a straight face!

    Serious Jeff, thanks for providing a thought provoking and lively forum for those of us interested in space exploration and the political maneuvering required to make it happen.
    I now have Space News bookmarked and look forward to your articles.

    Best of luck!

Leave a Reply to Marcel F. Williams 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>