When the Horse Has Left The Barn

Great insite. I love Wayne Hale. I love watching the mission status briefings when he is there. You can tell by his (sometimes long) answers to the press that he loves the program and his decisions are well taught out. If I got my geek wish to talk to someone at NASA it would be him.

So give NASA a lot more money to continue the shuttle or deal with the multi year gap.

Is there no limit to how stupid we (collective, impersonal) can be directed to be?

Wayne Hale writes, "About two years ago, we terminated 95% of the vendors for parts for the external tank project, for example. Smaller, but still significant, percentages of vendors for SSME, Orbiter, and RSRB have also been terminated."

I figure something like this has been going on since it was announced Shuttle will stop flying in 2010 (why continue contracts beyond that?).

Same as why we cannot fly the Saturn V anymore. No, the blueprints were not destroyed. Yes, all those vendors/manufacturers for the small parts are all gone.

The dog that is Ares I is never coming out of the doghouse.

Wayne Hale's opinion is very much appreciated. As someone with interest in the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, I am suggesting a way to orbit AMS while accelerating Shuttle retirement. This avoids risk and expense of recovering an Orbiter on Earth. Following is an excerpt from the upcoming article:

"AMS would fly aboard an Orbiter already prepared for STS-133 rescue, using the External Tank and the Solid Rocket Boosters already purchased. A Commander and Pilot in the flight deck would be responsible for docking with the Station. For EVA the Orbiter would bring the normal complement of three Extravehicular Mobility Units. The Mission Specialist (already aboard ISS) would be responsible for installing AMS assisted by the Pilot, with the ISS crew available for EVA support.

"The Commander, Pilot and Mission Specialist would return to Earth by Soyuz. This removes the risk of a Columbia accident, and the requirement to prepare another Shuttle for Launch On Need. (Hopefully the problems with Soyuz will be settled by 2010.) After its last mission is complete, the Orbiter will no longer be needed.

"At mission conclusion the crew would arm the Orbital Maneuvering System, exit to ISS and ceremoniously close the hatch. Mission Control in Houston can command the Orbiter to separate, maneuver and fire the OMS engines. A tail-first reentry over the Pacific would likely be chosen. In 50 years dozens of unmanned spacecraft and boosters have broken up over oceans without any harm. The AMS mission would be a memorable end to the Shuttle era.

I can appreciate Hale's argument. After spending time in other government projects where "5-year purchases" for a specific program occur and then the vendors are terminated, the costs of reproducing 1970's parts & components after a lag of just 5 years (let alone 30 years) is understandable.

Programs don't run forever, and budgetary constraints are always present. Designs are frozen, replacement parts & spares are purchased, the logistical & operational infrastrurcture works with the designs/parts/components ... and regardless of what "current" technology levels are, the original programs roll on using what it has been mandated to work with.

It's easy to wish things were different, and we often do. Comparisons are made to the computational power in a Blackberry or hand-held calculator to the capability in the Apollo 11 Lunar Excursion Module's onboard computer, especially in price as the main comparitive. But the two extremes are based on different technologies, one of which was stopped by congressional budgetary laws.

So here we are, with the beginnings of a space-based infrastructure that reaches back to Eisenhower, evident in multiple programs over the decades & all of which got stuck at the "5-year purchase" frozen design level, and coming up on a multi-year gap where any US space access is going to be based on unmanned launches ... or, if manned, is going to be based on re-extending some level of "cooperative" agreement with Russia. Due to the levels of discussion between Bush and Putin on recent events in Georgia, that agreement could prove very expensive to the remainder of the Bush administration as well as to the incoming Obama-or-McCain administration.

The ISS was based on a cooperative agreement between the US and Russia. (Yes, also among others, but there haven't been too many French, Japanese, or UK spacecraft carrying crewmembers back and forth.) China has been somewhat excluded, but with the current ISS mission statement seeming to be "the ISS exists to build the ISS" rather than having scientific, industrial/commercial, or exploratory goals, perhaps China doesn't care.

As technological advances (as well as the Russians or Chinese) don't adhere to or otherwise acknowledge a US Congressional programmatic & budgetary time table, then perhaps its time for a revision on how the US handles its space-faring capabilities, especially in view of the scores of billions of dollars in satellite communications infrastructures the US has invested in.

What a mess... Just shows how little I 'know' about the Shuttle. And also, the mess that NASA and the US will have to deal with from 2010 until Orion flies, since with escalating tensions arising from the Georgia situation, the US may be left without access to the ISS for a few years... Now that would be very, very bad.

The only horse now left in NASA's barn was still born...the Ares Orion has too many development problems and will be too expensive to operate...so catch the shuttle or beg the Russian for a ride.

I wonder what RSRB vendors have been terminated? Presumably not the ones relating to attaching RSRBs to the sides of the Ares V first stage.

Shuttle retirement, the Laws of Physics (that Ares I is attempting to violate) and the Gap becoming a real political issue will force the nation to implement a nearer-term, more realistic launch option. As long as Griffin remains at the helm, this will not happen, and we will continue to dump $ down the Ares rat hole.

The risk averse amongst us would probably lean toward an Orion/EELV option. Those of a bolder ilk would probably advocate more emphasis on COTS. Bottom line is that the sooner we can get away from Ares I, the sooner we can resolve the Gap issue and free ourselves of depending on the Russians for crewed access to space.

Two paraphrase a saying that NASA, White House, and Congress should have considered

(2) Programs in the hand ( Shuttle and ISS ) is worth a heck of a lot more than one ( Constellation) in the Bush.

Wayne Hale's comments are spot on...as far as the current situation is concerned. BUT, if conditions warrant, resurrecting the phased out parts vendors, etc., could be done...SO LONG AS YOU DON'T DESTROY THE BASIC ET TOOLING! Further, keeping the 8.4 m diameter tank tooling could still provide an opportunity to build some alternative to the Ares I/V fiasco. Doesn't matter whether you are for or against it, or "Direct" or whatever... Just don't burn all the bridges behind us!

That is why a number of us have, and Sen. John McCain, Kay Bayly Hutchenson, and Donald Vitter have written to President Bush to stop dismantling of the ET tank tooling and other items still in existance, at least until the next Congress and Administration can make future decisions!

We may be beating a dead horse (Shuttle), but I thought I saw the tail twitch a little and an eyelid blink!

Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

Small suppliers can be replaced. Most likely this 4 year pause would be the best thing to ever happen to shuttle since it would finally force them to make the improvements they've been putting off for decades now. The big suppliers cannot be replaced. They scrap the tooling for that ET and that's all she wrote.

Programs are exclusive. That's the problem with the rise of the program, especially where NASA is concerned. A rocket program will try to kill off new technology. They will try to discredit or kill any threat to their existence. It doesn't matter if the project you're talking about is shuttle or constellation. That's why it was stupid of NASA to projectize in the '80s. Kelly Johnson's rule number 3:

"The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10 percent to 25 percent compared to the so-called normal systems)."

The rest of the people you use should be draw from their functional organizations on an "as needed" basis to temporarily support the program, then they should go away. Functional organizations are much more oriented toward research and development. That's their thing. They are not threatened by research, they thrive off of it. That's what their people do when they're not supporting a program. The matrix organization was developed by engineers for engineers and it still has not been surpassed no matter how many times we "reinvent" aerospace.

I appreciate Wayne's comments and I do believe that much of what he says is true and irreversible. But if so, it demonstrates how our government...how our so-called 'leaders' can make such a short-sighted, irresponsible, monumentally moronic decisions to shut down the Shuttle program before the next vehicle is ready.

But how would you run both programs simultaneousy, you ask? Simple. You fund both programs the way they should have been. When Bush first proposed the Vision, he promised NASA $1B more per year...for 5 years...to do this. And never once did he ask Congress for this money. NASA should have never embarked upon this journey without the tools (money) needed to do this job. For 6 years of the his presidency, Bush accepted budget bills filled with pork spending and he gladly signed them into law. Now, he wants to tell me that we don't have the money to do the right thing on Shuttle? Does anybody really believe that relying upon the Russians for access to space is the best option? Oh dear god...

As an American taxpayer, I would have rathered spent the rest of my life flying the Shuttle and making sure it was as safe as possible instead of wasting my money on a vehicle that will most likely be cancelled after the next Presidential election.

These types of collosal embarrassments made by our politicians is what destroys any faith I have in government or our politicians.

IF continuing Shuttle isn't an option, and we must continue purchasing rides on Soyuz, let's not forget that we have a little leverage, too. It's called the Inter-friggin'-national Space Station. At last count, most of the ISS is made up of U.S. segments. And, while there is MCC capability in Moscow, Houston MCC currently controls ISS and is home to the folks who know how to do it.

So, if Russia were to decide to charge an outrageous fee for additional Soyuz flights, we remind them of our ability to just shut the whole operation down. I doubt they'd appreciate that, since ISS is their only game in town.

Of course, this isn't an option if the U.S. decides to just sever its ties with the Russian Space Agency.

Speaking of which, can someone remind me again why we're so upset about the Russia/Georgia (or is it Florida?) conflict? Is it because it will interfere with an energy corridor from the east to west, or is it because we're such great friends with Georgia that we want to protect them? If some sects inside Georgia want to leave, why should we care? But I digress....

I wish I could believe Ares/Orion huggers weren't part of a concerted effort by the PAO. It troubles me when I read of all of the new development issues and see the old gee-whiz, by-golly flyboy can-do jargon getting tossed around seemingly oblivious to those problems.

I'm sure there is someone somewhere who can say with specificity how many shuttle flights can continue to be safely done. At least that sounds like an important first step in determining just how bad the procurement issue really might be.

As I recall, "Mike" made a comment to the Senate that they would need to make a decision to "continue-fly" in the next couple of months.

It'll be interesting to see how this all unfolds.
Stay tuned.

Maybe it's time to accelerate the Falcon 9 Dragon capsule. I wouldn't mind seeing NASA risk an extra few hundred million on getting SpaceX up and running quicker as long as the keep their hands off and let SpaceX do the development themselves. Maybe it really is time to get this critical path to the ISS out of NASA's hands.

@Trailrider and @Dfens are both right

What I don't understand is that the CAIB said to cancel the shuttle or re-certify.

Given the cost, delays, and complexity of Ares, can someone explain how re-certification wouldn't be the better choice now?

Wayne Hale may be right, but it sounds a little defeat-est to be thinking that way. I'd rather have a safer, more capable recertified space shuttle than a less capable Ares rocket anyway!

... so far as the US having built the majority of the ISS components and the semi-twinned MCC capability for ISS control, if we don't have access to the ISS because of what passes for spacefaring expertise in the Oval Office (or any other level of systems engineering) but the Russians do (or the French via ongoing efforts with their manrated OTV + Ariane launch vehicles, or the Chinese [to an admittedly lesser degree]), then what specifically is NASA and the White House (and DOD) prepared to do if Russia does charge exorbitant (actually, orbital) fees for ISS access?

Devil's Advocate Time:

1 - We are a partner in the ISS prgram, not the owner.
2 - Our participation in the ISS program requires our access onboard, as well as shared control from the ground via the twinned MCC.
3 - If we refuse to accept ISS access via Russian space access systems due to cost, political pride, etc., while Russia can still provide ISS manning, orbital reboost & supportability via Progress, and laboratory/research efforts (& resupply) in concert with Europe, Japan, and other countries of the world, then at what point can the rest of the world's spacefaring/space-technology nations decide that US participation is being negated by the US itself?
4 - Can the Houston MCC override the Russian MCC? And if so, for how long? Agreed-upon ISS Telemetry/C2 channels & frequencies are not set in concrete.
5 - Without US particpation (prior to #4 above), are there precedences (possibly following sea law) where the ISS can be declared a derelict (at least relative to the role of the US in maintaining the ISS in a stable orbit)? As part of #4, if the MCC duties cannot be shared with the US (for whatever reason), then when would the US be seen as a nonparticipant, and Russia/ESA claim salvage rights?

Russia doesn't care about anything except what is good for Russia. If there's a chance to embarrass the US, regardless of past "good fellowship" between Putin & Bush, then so much the better. Either on the ground or in space.

Meanwhile, there's a valuable piece of real estate in orbit that's shared by multiple owners, with one owner (one of two major principles in that property) whose actions in maintaining that property rapidly becoming seen as neglect.

There's more than just the horse leaving the barn going on here. The barn's collapsing, and the land owner doesn't care or understand the problem.

Wayne's comments are interesting though I would consider the environment that he is working in.

Wayne Hale writes, "About two years ago, we terminated 95% of the vendors for parts for the external tank project, for example. Smaller, but still significant, percentages of vendors for SSME, Orbiter, and RSRB have also been terminated."

They did this when the Shuttle had over four years left to fly? What happens if they have questions about some parts and they go to those manufacturers to get details - they would not be able to answer the questions? Someone has sustaining engineering - and many of those parts are standard aerospace parts. If needed, for many parts they could buy more parts out of inventory.

A bit of history - about two years ago I was in an "Employee And Manager" lunch with Wayne, and some of us working in the Mission Control Center asked about why our displays, etc were so old. The displays are functional but the Operating System was a relic and the displays are all still very non-Graphical Interface. Jef Raskin would be horrified to see them. Wayne replied that it was not his problem since the MCC was about to be handed over to the new program and they could worry about it. We shook our heads since we still had years left to fly from the MCC. Since then we are finally going to Linux, and getting some Java applications - but the controller interface is stuck in 1975. There is no need to have something cool looking like OS X, but something more intuitive is only now finally on the way.

Wayne is just way too eager to burn down the barn to force us to buy him a newer, nicer one. I only hope we can afford to buy that new barn. Especially since people like Wayne Hale are designing it, and they think that they can just dip into a bottomless pit of money.

I cannot believe that the US expects to maintain a lead in space exploration with the Constellation program. People are going to Mars in THAT?
Somebody's crazy and it ain't me.
Lockheed had a great design they were evolving and we wound up with Apollo II. We aren't going to learn anything without doing something new.
And this Apollo retread is not the way to go, a giant leap backward.

Note to Charles: You and the others would be better off using OS X. The interface is fully developed and very intuitive, it's secure and stable. Mac OS X is a lot more than "cool" looks.
A lot of people at NASA agree with me by the way. Just ask them.

The fact is any objective look at the space shuttle must conclude that it has never even approached living up to its billing (which was used to 'sell' it long ago. It is NOT a cheap, reliable, reusable ride into space. It is a very expensive, unreliable, semi-disposable pink elephant. The almost inevitable Gap coming up might serve as a good opportunity for NASA to really put its human spaceflight house in order. First things to do: clear out the existing ineffectual management and administration (all the way to the top), dump all existing rocket plans and start over, and Congress must fund NASA consistent with the missions and mandates it pushes on NASA, and pass laws changing how now-politically-appointed offices are filled. Currently many, MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE NASA programs are being cancelled or severely short-changed to fund waste and futility at ESMD.