Augustine Committee Meets at MSFC Today

Besides the official twitter feed, is anybody doing liveblogging of this?

http://twitter.com/NASA_hsf

We are awaiting the revelations of the esteemed committee.
Then we shall see what truths, directions and other self serving recommendations we are to swallow. It better be good

I was somewhat confused at Sally Ride's assertion that, despite the likely Ares I/Orion schedule slip to 2017, it was unlikely that the alternative launch systems could be finished before that time. It seems that you could give fixed-cost contracts to -all- the commercial alternatives (Atlas V, Delta IV, SpaceX) for less than the Ares I cost, and if you offered a substantial bonus to whoever built a man-rated launch vehicle first, you'd be pretty much guaranteed to reduce the Gap.

It was great to hear Mr Coats state.
NASA should be doing Research AND Science in CxP not building rockets that the market is ready to do for NASA.

Use the ISS to gather the necessary scientific information to understand what it is going to take to extend humans beyond LEO

Hip Hip Hooray for Mr Coats!

Reality check time. Appears that some confusion and disbelief is creeping in to some of the posters. That’s what happens when ill informed, wishful thinking, armchair naive, engineers or wanna be engineers and wanna be program managers see what well informed professionals looking at the facts come up with. Don't be too surprised if they confirm what the Constellation program has said all along, and don't recommend some of the fairyland ideas floating around. Time will tell. I guess that’s why there is a flat earth society, and a man never landed on the moon society that no matter what is presented to them they refuse to accept the facts.

Eagle_eye - the fairyland is what the current plan is. Its make believe - a program that is again slipping, to 2017, that is WAY over budget, without hardware actually flying?

Yea, clearly that has a well stocked basis in reality.

*eye roll*

Do you wanna back your statement up with anything?

@Eagle_eye:

If the HSF Panel publishes their numbers, and the assumptions and rules are reasonable and fair, then I don't think there will be any serious objections to whatever the Panel presents to the President. This process has been so much more open and accessible than ESAS, and so far no one has been given a free ride.

ESAS took place in secrecy, its appendices were never published, and it clearly slanted the rules to favor the preferred solution. So far, that has not been the case with this HSF Review Panel.

Neither DIRECT, nor SD-HLLV, nor EELV are "farilyland ideas". It is Ares that has been nothing but trouble since its inception, instead of the "Safe, Simple, Soon" that we were promised. It is Ares that threatens to inflict 100% fratricide on its crew during a launch abort. It is Ares that suffers from unsolved TO. It is Ares that still has not completed its full PDR, four years into development. Thus it is the Ares sycophants that need to be prepared for the ignominious end of their paper rockets.

Cheers!
Mark S.

@Mark S

> If the HSF Panel publishes their numbers, and the assumptions and rules are reasonable and fair, then I don't think there will be any serious objections to whatever the Panel presents to the President.

On that note, I thought it was a little strange during Dr. Ride's presentation when she described how the Aerospace Corp assessment of the Ares/Orion timeline predicted a 2 year slip due to budgetary concerns and a 1.5 year slip due to technical risk. She then said that an overall 2 year slip seemed "about right" without really explaining the logic for how 2+1.5 becomes 2 years. Hopefully the findings in the final report from the commission will be better accounted for.

@Mr Coats Fan:

"NASA should be doing Research AND Science in CxP not building rockets that the market is ready to do for NASA."

The "market" isn't really ready to do that on their own, unless NASA funds, so what's the diff between them and LockMart anyway??

Maybe that philosopy of Mr. Coats is why Mr.-apparently-can't-suceed-at-anything-Cooke/Cook/Hanley got put in charge of CxP in the first place (as in maybe there's a method to the madness after all)?

Most space folks have noticed that somebody in the NASA higherups ranks didn't seem to genuinely want CxP to succeed (or knew it was technically challenged), hence situational manipulation to undermine by putting low-probability-of-success-people in charge to run the thing and running off the experienced & successful over-45 Shuttle folks, and all the while publicly claiming the CxP management is the "best"?

On another note, was Mr. Coats the one that presented the JSC Facilities funding gap? Do the CxP support facilities budget $$ get allocated from the Congressional CxP budget?

And if mission critical software for Ares (&who knows what other software) is 2 yrs. behind schedule, which pot is that funded from? Wondering how much congressional oversight there is for mission specific facilities and mission critical software and if the other centers are going to come in with those type funding gaps also?

On another note, something doesn't seem right about Steve Lindsey's stance on CxP vs. Shuttle safety - anybody know what's up with that? Just seems so irrational that there must be something more at play with his perceptions.

In general, most astronauts seem to have ambitions for their post-NASA career - typically with an aerospace contractor for some senior position or a consulting gig. hmmmmmmm, or maybe.......there's some commercial space companies might be wanting some former astronauts, if the govt subsidizes?

Wondering if there's more to Coats & Lindsey's stated positions on the CxP issues, and if so, are they really the right people to be making program level decisions on behalf of NASA and taxpayers?

Mr. Augustine has potential, if the govt could just turn him from a contractor advocate personna into a govt. watchdog type on behalf of the taxpayer - since he should know all the PR & marketing & revenue-generating-contract-milking strategies of the contractor community.

Why not going back to X33 spaceplane project? It's 90% completed finish. It's safer than Space Shuttle and Constellation.

Editor's note: It is not "90% completed finish". It was cancelled and what was under construction was totally disassembled nearly a decade ago. Besides, it would never fly anyway.

work force retention = unaffordable spaceflight

Shuttle Forever crowd wins again. Film at 11.

Anybody know where their viewgraphs can be downloaded? I've been searching but no success.

There were comments regarding need for heavy lift launch vehicles. Echos my feeings about all this... Orion, Altair, CxP all look great but ain't goin' nowhere unless you got a mighty rocket to vault a million lbm out of earth orbit.

@mr. shuttle
"It always comes back the shuttle. There is a reason it has lasted for nearly 30 years."

Yep, because of the priority for details and safety rather than bottom-line profits!!

The guy that was just talking to Sally about moving Ops away from NASA to commercial industry obviously doesn't have experience with commerical manufacturing/production /ops industry.

Sounds like another NASA "grass is greener" flawed thinking plan.

An example: compare FDA oversight, albeit limited, of drugs & medical devices - their GMP manufacturing & ops regs.

And the rate of product recalls in spite of the limited FDA oversight.

Human spaceflight has no tolerance for such errors.

Commercial companies priorities are bottom-line profits so taking risks with cutting corners etc. etc. will always be the priority over safety unless there's strict government regs & watchdog oversight.

A commercial space company wouldn't be any different.

@moonlady

The "market" isn't really ready to do that on their own, unless NASA funds, so what's the diff between them and LockMart anyway??

It is reasonable to think you are not thinking about the market but rather the launch site and/or software.

The Govt behind the market is the DOD/DOE/FAA/NOAA/NASA/NSF/NIH and a few others who are not public dealing with security.

Human spaceflight has no tolerance for such errors., Yes people are going to be killed as the market moves forward. NASA will be conducting Research and Science in order to settle the solar system.

Good luck.

@MoonLady: "Commercial companies priorities are bottom-line profits so taking risks with cutting corners etc.

NASA's cut plenty of corners with Ares 1, even has they spent towards an exploration architecture that ignored the bottom-line of the available NASA budget.

Human spaceflight has no tolerance for such errors.

Opening frontiers isn't for the faint-of-heart. Augustine needs to give innovators outside NASA a chance to pioneer human spaceflight.

@ Moonlady - so you are saying that Aeroflot is safer and more enjoyable than United or Southwest?

There needs to be an investigation into the entire ESAS process. ESAS said off-the-shelf 4 segment SRM and J-2 would meet requirements. That immediately morphed into a 5 segment SRM and upgraded J-2 with the associated Billions of dollars in development costs. Somebody sold the public a pack of lies and they need to be exposed and escorted to the unemployment line.

Why is nobody talking about this?

FYI for all you talking about extending the shuttle to 2014, the very last shuttle engine test at Stennis Space Center will be run about 1:00 today. After the test, the stand will be changed over to run J-2X engines. You can't fly shuttles without the engines.

@MoonLady:

The guy that was just talking to Sally about moving Ops away from NASA to commercial industry obviously doesn't have experience with commerical manufacturing/production /ops industry.

But I do. And the picture you paint of the commercial aerospace industry and their ability to perform Ops seems to indicate you have little-to-no experience in this area. Your example of the FDA as watchdog is outside the domain of aerospace, so it's NFG. The more appropriate analogy would be the FAA oversight of commercial aircraft manufacturers. I have 20 years of participating in commercial airframer flight test programs (which are, yes, operations). It is well known that you are safer getting on a flight test airplane (even with some of the edge-of-the-envelope tests they perform) than it is even getting on a commercial airline flight...and those are damn safe too!

The problem with NASA Ops (as seen with both Challenger and Columbia) is the inherent conflict of interest. They are both the operator and the "regulator". Or a better way to say it is, because they are the top-dog government agency, they are their own regulator. The reason the FAA/airline/airframe manufacturer model works (and works well) is because of the solid base of regulations (CFR Title 14, the FARs), and the understanding by airframers and operators that, if they do NOT abide by the FARs and maintain safe operations, the FAA will bring the hammer down... up to and including pulling their certificates to fly and/or manufacture.

NASA does need to get out of the Ops business. If you think otherwise, you need to show us how, and show us how the FAA/airline/airframe model is worse than NASA.

I think some people need to take off the tinfoil hats for this one. Let Augustine and Co. do their job before jumping to conclusions.

I found myself agreeing with everything Griffin said except for his assertion that Ares I and V was the best way to achieve the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. I think that Griffin and Bush were ultimately more enamored with the idea of having these rockets as monuments to themselves rather than having any real, rational reason for building them. It's sad, but such is the quality of the lobbying effort of these aerospace companies that they can fool almost anyone into believing almost anything, for a while. Certainly while these people who come into these federal positions of power live in that "bad news vacuum" that their power creates around them, they have only to choose from whichever siren's song they like best and pursue that course into oblivion.

"So I would say to the Commission: do not close off options. Do not allow the parochial voices of the small-minded, the self-interested, and the uniformed to prevail. Choose the future." -- Griffin

That quote made me wonder if the commission is authorized to smack people.

That's such an annoying thing for him to say. It's not "parochial" or "small-minded" to question Ares, nor are doubters automatically "self-interested" or ... bah! It's so frustrating.

The question is HOW to get humans into space, HOW to take NASA forward. Funny thing is, I don't think he's doing Ares any favors with this sort of talk.

Any bets on which way the commission will go?

@Joe 90

The last Apollo mission, Apollo 17, flew in 1972. The first Shuttle mission, STS-1, flew in 1981. That was nearly a decade-long gap in US human space flight...

Don't forget the last Skylab missions ended in 1974. But that's still a pretty long gap until the first shuttle mission in 1981.

Hopefully if the Side-mount is chosen, we can have the Orion flying by 2014 or 2015.

@anonymous: The last Apollo mission, Apollo 17, flew in 1972. The first Shuttle mission, STS-1, flew in 1981.

Skylab 1, 2, 3. (1973-1974)

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (1975)

Anonymous, You forgot about the 3 Skylab flights and the Apollo/Soyuz mission. But granted it was still a long gap.

Dfens,

Neither Bush nor any president knows or cares what rocket NASA uses. On the scale of things a president has to worry or think about, NASA ranks above the park service but below the FAA. The last administrator to have ready access to the president was Webb.

Those engineers who I know and trust who interfaced with Griffin, which you have not Dfens, had only praise for both his technical know-how and his smarts. Unlike other administrators, Griffin knew, for example, what a star-tracker CCD was.

@anonymous:

The last Apollo mission, Apollo 17, flew in 1972. The first Shuttle mission, STS-1, flew in 1981. That was nearly a decade-long gap in US human space flight...

Better recheck your history and modify your timeline slightly. Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz took us out to 1975.

@Dan

I don't believe this was truly the last test of SSME. We have a good reason to belive we will be doing more testing later this fall. Especially if Shuttle is extended. But even if it weren't, we think more testing is in store for later this year.

I would hope we get a recommendation for multiple ways to get Americans into orbit. Clearly relying on only one system has it's problems. I hope this means that Orion will continue, with whatever rocket will get it into orbit soonest, as well as encouraging commercial companies to achieve something.

I personally like the shuttle, even with all it's limitations. It has flown more than any other single system, the only one that comes close is Soyuz. It allows more things to happen, and be done in space, granted in low earth orbit.

Anything that is chosen, what is really needed is a way to support if from the government and people. You need to have a way of continuing spaceflight even when the economy stumbles. What I really hope will come from the Augustine Commission is a recommendation about how to really seriously support and continue spaceflight.

I wouldn't mind seeing a few more ways of having oversight of NASA. There needs to be some way of independently examining major suggestions, and really making sure the facts are honest.

>Statement by Michael Griffin to The Augustine Committee
>
>"So I would say to the Commission: do not close off options. >Do not allow the parochial voices of the small-minded, the >self-interested, and the uniformed to prevail. Choose the >future."

In other words, don't kill my baby.

@Ray:
bs - govt regs & oversite of any manufacturing/ops industry is relevant to the discussion. FDA for food, drugs, & med devices is as good as any example. Fear of being shutdown still doesn't preclude defects and recalls.

but ok-take FAA if you must - and remember that airlines study that NASA tried to not release? Nope, commercial airline oversight safety results are not as good as NASA operates Shuttle, or rather, as NASA oversees the Shuttle Ops contractor.

NASA's role is to be the watchdog of the ops contractor. It only becomes a conflict of interest when NASA personnel become partners in crime with contractors instead of performing their watchdog oversite role.

@John Kavanough:
Encouraging commercial companies by reduction of American Space Quality & Safety standards is not a legitimate rationale for subsidizing them with taxpayer $$, for a few very wealthy space tourists to galavant. Plus, accidents in space create more space junk to deal with.......

NASA Shuttle ops are one thing the US government actually does do better than any other govt. agency around.

Dems should beware of diluting NASA's world excellence in the Space Ops role for commercial companies with less than stellar quality & safety records for the benefit of a few very wealthy would-be-tourists.

@ Moonlady: "Dems should beware of diluting NASA's world excellence in the Space Ops role for commercial companies with less than stellar quality & safety records for the benefit of a few very wealthy would-be-tourists."

On this one, I don't think it's an issue of Dem vs. GOP. The drain of talent would happen anyway, given the transition plans. NASA needs to capture that institutional memory & keep its knowledge management intact.

@MoonLady
Dems should beware of diluting NASA's world excellence in the Space Ops role for commercial companies with less than stellar quality & safety records for the benefit of a few very wealthy would-be-tourists.

By Law

The FAA is responsible for Commerical Space Flight with Humans, not NASA. Get use to it. The FAA does not have commercial companies running its control towers and airspace. NASA is helping them develop NEXGEN will have application for Space Ops.

The DEMs know that STEM is needed in America not funding space controllers to sit on console giving plans to astronauts or launch rockets for CxP. Research and Science will show the way for NASA's future by education in science and engineering not taking NASA's budget to cancel everything by emergency request because NASA ops destroyed Columbia then build a Rocket on the ole buddy system.

@ Astroboy
Having sat in on the meeting today and after talking briefly with the chairman afterwards, I don't think that there is much to worry about in terms of Constellation's future. One thing to mention is that the discussion came to a point where they were discussing tiny mission details on a return flight from Mars... to discuss such details and debating as to whether or not the procedure would work (even though it is at least 20 years away) would indicate to me that the intentions are still a go for Constellation. That of course makes me happy because that means I will still have a job =)

Either way, I have complete faith in the panel and their ability to filter fact from gossip which is a monumental task itself. Either way, I will support what they decide and just because they decide one way or another doesn't mean that the president has to conform to the report's suggestions.

Either way, I still think that commercial transportation systems are an amazing endeavor in themselves. I have some friends working for SpaceX and I can say in complete confidence that they are going to have a bright future ahead of them. For me, my curiosity lies in the future collaboration between nations in terms of space policy/transportation/etc.

All my best,
Adam K - NASA Engineer

JD: Griffin may be smart, have technical know-how, and know what a star-tracker CCD is. But it is a well-known fact that the current Ares I configuration is based solely on a cocktail napkin design that he has been touting for more than a decade. He claims to be a scholar in Systems Engineering. Yet under his leadership, NASA selected a point design and then proceeded to modify its requirements, processes and organizational structure to implement his pet design. To make matters worse, they threw out the ESAS-recommended stick and its "safe, simple, soon" concept of maximizing existing hardware and proceeded with a complete redesign from bottom to top. It started by tossing out the SSME based on the claim it was too expensive and took too long to modify for air start. Somehow it is cheaper and quicker to build and test the new J-2X engine from scratch (had this not been done, we wouldn't be testing our last SSME). The resulting drop in performance caused the SRB to go from 4 to 5 segments, and now 5 1/2, along with a new propellant mixture. To make things worse, the Orion has to be down-sized to make up for the lack of performance and is in a constant state of change due to an ever-changing rocket design such that it still is not at PDR after 4 1/2 years. Crew size is down from 6 to 4, there are serious issues with thrust oscillation in the first stage, and there was consideration of an expanded nozzle which results in complex and expensive retractable support posts on the launch mount. This last option has been reversed, probably because the payload has been down-sized to the point where this is no longer necessary. To top it all off, the rocket actually put the payload on a sub-orbital trajectory such that the service module has to serve as a third stage to put itself into orbit. There is a difference between engineering iteration and refinement and putting band-aids on top of band-aids to try and make a flawed architecture work. Ares I classifies as the latter. And we have Griffin to thank for that. He is better qualified to be in the trenches working on the detailed design rather than micro-managing the project from the top. His hatred for Shuttle is also well-known and I believe this all to have been a plan to kill Shuttle more than it was develop a successful replacement.

I'm all for extending the shuttle to cover the gap but haven't all the production lines shut down and contracts ended for parts and supplies to continue flying them?

I'm with Sean Lyons on a way to keep NASA honest.
I am witnessing too many poor technical decisions being covered up with back covering smoke screens, being told to end technical discussion because decisions have been made,with holding public property test data and twisting into something it is not it to suit a poor design,
political positions ruling selection of critical hardware and materials.
Being a new contractor for NASA is not easy and I keep good notes of names, events and have no intention of standing by and become party to shoddy direction at all! Most NASA technical effort is fine and many good engineers work there but I'm finding too many instances of in fighting, turf wars, fear of "push back", exclusion from critical meetings by with holding funds. This is not not how we got to the moon in the 1960s. I'm afraid the spirit is gone, might makes right and if your not invited you are not important they have it covered they say but just who are they? Experts? may be in a narrow fieldand stumbled into a vacant space perhaps? no many are novices delegating what they don't know to clueless donkeys ....very sad ,,,,very disturbing and if given the chance i'll make them pay all of them

I agree with every word of Mike Griffin's letter to the Augustine Committee.

Speaking from the ***** side at MSFC.
2-4 year slip for Ares 1
1 year or less for shuttle C
1-2 years for EELV

The shuttle C and EELV delays are based on how much MSFC civil servant penetration is made on each. Deeper the civil servant role the more time is added to schedule.

This is from the existing schedule date of 1st launch (Orion 1) March 2015.
It’s all based on money.

No way a 7 year delay. This will all be completed and flying within the next 7.

NASA should build spacecraft and buy rides on rockets.

@Dave

How profound! Yeah, what he said...

"Editor's note: It is not "90% completed finish". It was cancelled and what was under construction was totally disassembled nearly a decade ago. Besides, it would never fly anyway."

Not to mention, X-33 was merely a suborbital technology demonstrator, not a manned orbital vehicle.

I'd still like to know if Blackstar is real, though!

They did what??

It gets worse - Aerospace Company basically said we aren't going to the moon with this plan. Does not work.

Sooner, safer, simpler sounds too much like better, faster, cheaper. I don't see why the gap is so important, whether it is 5 or 10 years we need to get it right since it will set us up for the next 30 years. The moon and Mars aren't going anywhere.

Thanks for allowing me to comment as, I totally disagree with Mike Griffen and his comments. Mike was a above average engineer and as Administrator was the focus for the future direction. Constellation lacked the program boards of Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, and never could challenge the technical issues and bring the problems to a technical solution. Constellation Board was a policy board only and failed to make technical decisions.

Dr. Von Braun would never put astronauts on a solid stick, as the primary propuslion system for human astronauts, and we all know why, non controllable abort and a primary launch abort system (LAS) as known in the technical community has a low probability of survival of the astronauts.

Buzz (Aldrin) was correct, why go to the Moon as we've been there. I think it is boring to the American people. Forget about needing a place to hang around for months and maybe years and the going beyond to Mars and other places, for years at a NASA budget for Space flight and Exploration of $8-10 billion per year. We need a more agressive objective, Mars and beyond.

Where do we go from here as the next generation launch vehicle architecture is broke and the management of the Constellation program is broke. I want NASA and the American people to have real value and be successful, or shut down NASA forever. (I lived and worked with the great people at NASA and contractors at the Johnson Space Center and want them to succeed, but also do not want a waste that has been the past norm.)

The Augustine review committee is just another review committee of experts with great recommendations, but may be useless unless there is dominant follow thru. You need to have a execution management in place (ie a Jay Greene team of experienced hardware development people in place, with the NASA Administrator and NASA Center's technically responsible to the Jay Greene team or shut down Constellation).

I have no technical or financial ties to the space program and am fully retired and not funded by any company or government organization. I worked in Houston for many years and have knowledge of NASA, the space program, and want a robust human space program.

Bill Christoff
Temecula California

I'm trying really hard to see it Mike's way. Frankly I don't believe that NASA is organizationally and programmatically capable of producing a new rocket, even if it does have the technical expertise.

That the administrator was unable to stop various interests from redesigning Ares I around the payload rather than the other way round gives me no confidence whatsoever in the chain of management from the Ares program at MSFC up through NASA HQ to the congressional committees that NASA serves and who are ultimately responsible.

It would be humiliating for NASA to have to return to the Shuttle, and I think that may turn out to be a decisive turning point that caps 30 years of failed rocket development programs, not because of the engineers, but because of the politics.

Mark, I think you've got it right.
A year or dollar less of political inconvenience comes at a cost to the overall mission that hinders us in the future.

I honestly believe any plan is a plan. Had we kept with the X-33 and venture star program there was a decent chance they could have developed solutions.
Likewise we could have avoided the self imposed gap with constellation if enough funds were provided to continue shuttle flights or advance Cots-D efforts.
Constellation by itself is also a good plan. Why are we trying to hurry up and save a space station if the end goal is Mars?

Working to the convenience of politicians has gotten us into this mess. Its not likely to get us out.

So if other architectures offer no advantage over constellation in terms of closing the gap then other factors will come into play such as cost and capability.

I would dearly love to see Ares5 fly, but i fear the pricetag is not sustainable. Ares1 is costing a lot of money to go one astronaut better than soyuz, lets face it not good value money.

TAO, TPS and Possum,

Sounds like you've been on the inside.

You all know the fraud that has take place here. Those participants and people in power with the responsibility to take action (not look the other way when the truth is given them) have done a grave disservice to the agency, our country and the future of spaceflight.

Unfortunately, the disciplined response needed to put the NASA workforce back in the right direction will not come from this administration or, for that fact, any administration or even the lawfully bound investigatory bodies!

Pray for the United States of America.

"Choose the future", Mike? Are you kidding me? ARES is "revisit the past". NASA hasn't chosen the "Future" for some time and has been "eating the seed corn" for a while. ARES will likely work.....someday.

Once gain Mike Griffin is spot on, especially on his comment about certain 'uniformed' (to which I'd add an inmense pool of 'retired uniformed' now working as contractors) trying to make NASA (and other agencies with interests in space) a mere appendage to their department / former employer.

One such person three years ago admitted to me how NASA got scr*w*d on NPOESS, and it has only gotten worse over the past few years on certain dual (supossedly) programs where some of 'those' understand collaboration as everyone else shutting up and rubber stamping whatever they put on the table ... or risk personal attacks and defamation, with the potential of adverse effect on continued employment in the DC area. Now it's become particularly blatant as we're witnessing in certain on-going review in policy (and no, I'm *NOT* referring to Augustine's).

Luckily Congress, despite its many faults, is not as 'dumb' as some would like and has begun taking note and action. Enough said. Those involved know the context under which I'm making these cryptic comments.

>I wonder if the spare shuttle still exists. Is the tooling >still available for shuttle construction?

NASA has never had a 'spare' shuttle. IIRC the Enterprise is more of a prototype. It'd probably cost more to turn it into a working spacecraft than to build a new one from scratch.

@Adam K

Thanks for your insight. Very interesting indeed.

The Commission has been asking some tough questions, leading some people to believe they're considering the abandonment of Constellation (or at least Ares). But considering the history of politically-appointed commissions it's just as likely to put a seal of approval to the status quo.

I guess we'll see. I wonder if any gambling websites are taking bets on this?

After spending most of the day at the Augustine committee meeting yesterday, and listening to the previous day, these are some of the thrusts that I have gleaned.

1. Cost

Constellation is already woefully overbudget and behind schedule and there is not going to be a lot of money to remedy the existing overruns, much less plus ups to keep the ESAS architecture going.

2. ISS

ISS WILL be supported as it fits into the administration's ideas regarding greater international cooperation AND the fact that if we bail on the Europeans before 2020, we can pretty much forget ever having any large scale industrial/scientific cooperation with them again (especially after we have just screwed them on the ITER project [me]).

3. Shuttle extension/Shuttle Sidemount

These two options are intertwined. No one wants the gap to be seven years and Sally Ride posited a plan to keep STS flying till 2014, which implies a smooth transition to Shuttle sidemount. It is obvious how things are starting to shape up to me. Ares of whatever flavor is MSFC supported and Shuttle Sidemount is supported by JSC. It will be interesting to see how this particular power struggle plays out. I would place my money at this time on JSC, but you never know how it will turn out.

4. Beyond LEO

Beyond LEO is definitely threatened. I don't recall (I could have been out of the room) seeing much in the way of a lunar architecture presented. MSFC seemed to be focused on Mars for their presentation.; I did not see enough of what JSC presented to know what their position is. However, if Mars is the focus, then the do loop that we have been in since 1989 will reassert itself.

In order to do Mars, we need a big launcher. In order to build a big launcher, we must have more money, since there is not going to be more money, we drop back to studying Mars for another ten years. Snoring begins.

Those who choose Mars at all costs, doom exploration.

@Kevin Parkin:

'It would be humiliating for NASA to have to return to the Shuttle'

Well, perhaps the Shuttle could play a large role in a Mars mission. Perhaps the most viable option for such a voyage will demand the on-orbit gradual construction of a massive structure for the trip, for starters.

Really, how large would a vehicle making a trip to Mars realistically have to be? About ISS size? Then Shuttle is the perfect beast for the assembly job, no?

And when the Shuttles get too old ... build more. It's not like a design has to be done up.

Just because we are stuck in LEO with the Shuttle does not mean we are stuck in LEO. This argument can apply to a lunar-based vehicle as well. We've done the capsule trip to the Moon ... if we go back, let's use a spacecraft, with the help of the proven STS design, and on-orbit modular construction. Such a voyage would be a real dry-run test of a Mars voyage.

@ Dennis: Sorry, but your #1 is just flat-out wrong. Even when you tried to throw this out to the commission yesterday, it was refuted by another public commenter. How can you be "woefully overbudget" when your original budget has been slashed by 40%? As a result, the only 'knob' that CxP has to turn is pushing back the schedule - this is just a basic fact that you (and others) seem to conveniently dismiss.

@lowely

'uniformed'

Which was the primary goal of Mike Griffin to hide the truth and keep everyone but a small number of people included in the decision process. The idea of system engineering to include the stakeholders was ignored and all and every effort to not openly discuss the decision process and to force a procurement through the system before congress changed was made. CxP was born a bastard to Dr Griffin and Doc NonAerospace in a test tube.

Now the hood is about half open and the engine is missing and the tires are old and cracked and need to be replaced.
The Junk yard will not even take the program to the yard to be crushed and reused as it is a biological hazard.

Enjoy the future of inclusion and openness and transparency within the US Government.

Luckily Congress, despite its many faults, is not 'dumb'
No Kidding. Best Wishes to you and your thoughts.!

To those who feel that since we've gone to the Moon, we no longer need to go there: Are you looking for an inspiring challenge, or are you looking at a logical, sustainable, outward growth? Are you looking for another Apollo type sprint, or stunt, but with a more distant destination? Or, do you want to do things right, this time? What kind of logic is it to say that since we've already been to the Moon we no longer need to return? What kind of historical precedent is this approach founded on? I can understand the impatience, but if we don't do this in the right order it won't be sustainable.

The fastest way to a long-term presence on Mars is through the Moon, if we can also create and open new markets and foster commercial endeavors along the way. It's not just about the destination (Moon or Mars), it's about the journey (building up infrastructure). Think with the long term in mind, not quick gratification.

The Ares advocates' Mars presentation was actually a joke since it did not address how we're going to protect astronauts from galactic radiation without adding several hundred tonnes of mass shielding. I'm glad a couple on the committee caught them on this yesterday.

Possum,

It is well documented that the decision about replacing RS-29's with the new J-2X wasn't solely about what would or could do the job, but about maintaining the know-how in rocket propulsion. In fact, if you read Dr. Griffin's letter to the Committee, he states such. The J-2X is the least of Constellation's problems; if anything, it's not even a pacing item now having so far met or exceeded its developmental benchmarks to date. The only design drawn by Dr. Griffin that I've seen was for the MLAS. And MLAS has turned-out to be a very good idea. The "Stick" design originated elsewhere.

Bill,

Above average engineers do not end-up with a BS Physics, MS AeroSci, PhD AeroEng, MEng EE, MS Applied Physics, MBA, and lastly a MEng CivE, any one of which are challenging enough, never mind earning them at top-ranked schools. After all, not all Ph.D.'s are created equal. As such, stating that Dr. Griffin was an "above average engineer" rendered the rest of your comments about as useful as a dry spudded wildcat.

@ Dennis: Sorry, but your #1 is just flat-out wrong. Even when you tried to throw this out to the commission yesterday, it was refuted by another public commenter. How can you be "woefully overbudget" when your original budget has been slashed by 40%? As a result, the only 'knob' that CxP has to turn is pushing back the schedule - this is just a basic fact that you (and others) seem to conveniently dismiss.

The original budget was cut because the administrator of NASA completely ignored the president and OSTP concerning the implementation of the VSE. Marburger said it in March 2006 that if NASA did not seek to add to the economic vitality of the U.S. when stacked up against other priorities, that it would suffer, and suffer it did. This is due to an architecture that was unworkable from the start and everyone knew it.

Dr. Griffin compensated by raping and pillaging other programs to get the money back for Ares. The whole 10 healthy centers thing did not help either in that it ended up with a lot of waste and duplication of effort in an attempt to keep charge codes filled up.

Yesterday a question was asked about how NASA would respond to a National Academies of Science report that said that NASA had to become more relevant in solving the overall problems that face the nation. Steve Cook's response was to talk about spin offs. This completely and absolutely missed the point of what the national academies were talking about.

This is why you don't get the money that is required. The ESAS architecture does not support broader national goals, and as long as this is the case, money will continue to be siphoned from the program.

As I stated yesterday, money is not the issue, we have been spending money like drunken sailors, but even a drunken sailor buys what serves his needs.

Dennis,

You imply a connection between Dr. Marburger's comments in March 2006 and OMB action vis-a-vis NASA's subsequent budgets. Such a connect did not exist.

Dr. Griffin raided NASA's non human exploration programs because he felt his first priority was to fulfill VSE since it was a policy affirmed by the President. The Administrator does, after all, work for the President. So, robotics, science, and aeronautics were considered secondary priorities while fulfillment of VSE was considered Job #1.

The White House, after getting heat from Congress, forced Griffin to change course. Naturally, it occurred to neither the White House nor Congress that perhaps the more rational course was to appropriate more money so that VSE could be funded as planned while also maintaining NASA's other programmatic priorities. And now President Obama has promised even deeper cuts to NASA.

Wonder how that will affect schedules?

Dr. Griffin raided NASA's non human exploration programs because he felt his first priority was to fulfill VSE since it was a policy affirmed by the President. The Administrator does, after all, work for the President. So, robotics, science, and aeronautics were considered secondary priorities while fulfillment of VSE was considered Job #1.

If it was Dr. Griffin's first priority to fulfill the VSE he failed miserably. He completely ignored what OSTP said was the goal of the VSE (economic development of the solar system, and which congress agreed). The architecture that he chose, which is based upon his and Owen Garriott's Planetary Society study in 2004, could not have been farther from what would have worked to make that happen.

This is exactly what happened after the announcement of the Human Exploration Initiative in 1989, NASA ignored the president, lost support, and the project died.

Reality is a tough taskmaster.

@JD
Dr. Griffin raided NASA's non human exploration programs because he felt his first priority was to fulfill VSE since it was a policy affirmed by the President. The Administrator does, after all, work for the President.

BS. Congress gave NASA emergency transfer authority after columbia STS107 that lasted until it was removed this year.

Congress as Dr Griffin what the emergency was in 2006. Dr Griffin asked for a closed session and did not answer in public. There was no emergency and Congress asked NASA to not transfer funds from programs in the approprations budget to VSE. NASA ignored this and just kept on stealing funds without any oversite. OMB knows this as well.

Then out came the apollo on steroids comments from Dr Griffin in stupidity.

It best you go read the congressional record from 2006. However it was a closed session. It will clear up your memory.

And now President Obama has promised even deeper cuts to NASA.
Could it be because NASA is/was corrupt in spending and transfer of funds without congressional approval and no communication with the president ?

I hope this is not the case now that we have a new adminstration and adminstrator with clear direction from the president and congress to Fund aeronautics and science and provide a review free of conflict of interest for human spaceflight.

Griffin said "uninformed" not "uniformed". You misquoted him.

If anyone thinks continuing Shuttle Orbiter missions for a few more years or longer enhances ISS utilization, they're daft. ISS will continue to gut their utilization budgets to buy more large spares to haul to ISS on the Shuttle Orbiters to hedge against the now-delayed day when Shuttle Orbiters are finally gone.

And then Shuttle and ISS Programs, and the Astronaut Corps and Mission Operations, will find ways to turn each and every extra Shuttle Orbiter mission to ISS into a Battlestar Galactica EVA and robotics orgy like STS-127/2JA mission, which will cost more money to plan and train and execute than an MPLM utilization mission. And does anyone doubt that another "final" HST repair mission will be added if the Shuttle Orbiters fly to 2014? Every dollar spent on another HST mission will be a dollar not spent on ISS utilization or spares, or on Constellation.

BlueMoon

JD,

I didn't realize the top metric for a great engineer was the mumber of degrees, and apparently President Obama didn't either. He could have kept Dr. Griffin on as NASA Administrator for his administration or at least until he decided who he wanted as the next Administrator. President Obama instead accepted the resignation of Dr. Griffin and left an acting Administrator in place. My comments stand.

Bill

I must say I'm amazed by how many people are talking about building more space shuttles and somehow reviving the program.

I'm sorry, but that's just a complete fantasy. Just because the designs exist doesn't mean you can push a button and get them rolling off the assembly line. Building new shuttles would be a massive undertaking. And because so many design flaws and safety issues have been revealed over the years, you'd also have to engage in major redesign.

But forget the expense: there's just no political will to turn the clock back. How would you sell it? "This time we'll do it right!"

Sidemount maybe ... new orbiters, forget it.

@ Dennis Wingo:

"The original budget was cut because the administrator of NASA completely ignored the president and OSTP"

"Dr. Griffin compensated by raping and pillaging other programs to get the money back for Ares"

"This is why you don't get the money that is required"

So Dennis, you agree that the program isn't "woefully overbudget" then?

And for "Steve Cook's response was to talk about spin offs"

Steve Cook was asked directly by Lester Lyles to specifically name technologies that could be used in other fields, and Gen. Lyles specifically mentioned how he could envision the water reclamation unit being used in third world countries. What was he supposed to do, dodge Gen. Lyles' question?

Once gain Mike Griffin is spot on, especially on his comment about certain 'uniformed' (to which I'd add an inmense pool of 'retired uniformed' now working as contractors) trying to make NASA (and other agencies with interests in space) a mere appendage to their department / former employer.

hey thanks
uninformed

Once gain Mike Griffin is spot on, especially on his comment about certain 'uninformed' (to which I'd add an inmense pool of 'retired uninformed' now working as contractors) trying to make NASA (and other agencies with interests in space) a mere appendage to their department / former employer.

Then out came the apollo on steroids comments from Dr Griffin in stupidity.

@Science & Research, et al.

And your point is?

Here we have the written testimony of a former NASA Administrator, backed up by substantial technical analysis performed by NASA, and it's going to take significantly more than personal attacks, technical snippets, and insults to counter this.

The fact is over the next decade or two we'll have substantially more DoD contractors than DoD contracts, and it's not up to other civilian agencies to pick up the tab for this difference.

Steve Cook was asked directly by Lester Lyles to specifically name technologies that could be used in other fields, and Gen. Lyles specifically mentioned how he could envision the water reclamation unit being used in third world countries. What was he supposed to do, dodge Gen. Lyles' question?

No he was not. General Lyles referenced a National Academies report that concluded that NASA programs should make a better connection to the needs of the nation.

Here is the report

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12701

Here is an excerpt

In this context, and responding to its charge, the committee sought to address the top-level goals of the civil space program and the connection between these goals and broad national priorities. Therefore the committee focused on the long-term strategic value of a U.S. civil space program, and the report does not address nearer-term issues that affect the conduct of U.S. space activities other than provide a context in which mere tactical decisions might be made.

This is from page 1 of the section titled "From Sputnik and Apollo to Today's Globalized Environment

Do you see even the hint of the spin off argument there? As one of the authors of the National Defense University's "Toward a New Space Power Theory", I have been involved in exactly this level of discussion for the past 3 years now and spin offs have NOTHING to do with what the national academies is talking about.

The ESAS architecture does nothing toward addressing any of the high level strategic goals of the nation in terms of energy, resources, space power, or the economic development of the solar system.

Dr. Griffin cavalierly stated that all we needed to go back to the Moon "is a good map". There will be results presented in a few weeks that is in peer review that will completely explode this narrowminded view of the Moon.

The Marburger speech of March 2006 is exactly in line with the National Academies and with our work in the Space Power development arena (space power is in the context of national power and not something like a solar power satellite). Marburger explicitly stated then that NASA was not as relevant to these larger national goals and its funding increase profile would suffer in contrast to NIH, NSF, and other agencies that were perceived to contribute more to the economic strength of the nation.

In this context, Steve Cook's answer was the WORST POSSIBLE response as it revealed that he understood NOTHING about these larger contexts.

As for being overbudget, the ESAS report

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140643main_ESAS_12.pdf

indicates in section 12.8.6, page 679, has a cost for the launch part at 31.2 billion dollars and the total cost of the entire architecture at $124 billion (page 676), which includes $20 billion just for CEV flights to ISS.

This includes Ares 1, Ares 5, CEV, Altair, RLEP, and everything associated with the program.

ALREADY the Ares 1 has grown to $35 billion dollars according to Cook's estimate and is now slated to fly in 2017 instead of 2012.

Do you seriously think for one second that the cost of the CEV, Ares 5, Altair, and all associated costs are going to be no more than the remaining $69 billion dollars?

@lowly

And your point is?

Here we have the written testimony of a former NASA Administrator, backed up by substantial technical analysis performed by NASA, and it's going to take significantly more than personal attacks, technical snippets, and insults to counter this.

The testimony in fact is not on record as it was a closed session with the house. I do recall Dr Griffin stating the Sofia telescope vibrated to much and the project should be cancelled as useless.

substantial technical analysis performed by NASA. We Do ?
It appears to me the procurement for CxP was released without this substantial technical analysis.

There is no personal attacks, rather uninformed opinion from Dr Griffin to cancel efforts in science investigation in order to place additional funds in the CxP outyear budget.
The game is now over. NASA has no authority to move funds across funding lines as it once did.

The fact is over the next decade or two we'll have substantially more DoD contractors than DoD contracts, and it's not up to other civilian agencies to pick up the tab for this difference.

At the very least the DOD trying not to be corrupt and lie to Congress about things they are not uninformed about. I hope NASA no longer does this also.

Best wishes

@Dennis:

You're right on about national interests/policies.

@JD: Re: number of Degrees:

Sorry couldn't resist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
okay he was a scientist not an engineer so how about this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun