Astronauts On NASA Stability

Dear Horowitz, Crippen and Davis et al.

This kind of op ed crap may persuade little schoolchildren, scientifically illiterate America adults and the hoards of NASA zombies that do your authoritarian bidding without question, but to those of us who read this blog, we know full well that for the last five years at the very least you have :

1) wasted five years and ten billion dollars of tax payer money.

2) inflated your imaginary egos far beyond your actual abilities.

3) saddled us with a rocket with no intrinsic value and utterly contrary to the evolutionary history of launch vehicles and the laws of physics.

4) exercised or ignored criminality with impunity.

5) done America and NASA a great disservice.

Heckava job. Just a heckava job.

You fool nobody here.

Sigh... more shills on the ATK payroll (Crippen, Halsell, Horowitz, Precourt) and Constellation contractors (Davis at Jacobs, Duffy and Melroy at LockMart) selling their former astronaut glory cheaply.

As someone who has written for former astronauts for the last five years, shuttle veterans and Apollo moonwalkers included, my hat is off to whomever herded these folks together into a coherent theme. But unfortunately this is standard stuff-we have an imperative to explore, etc. Perhaps we do, but unless and until the American people feel some direct benefit from this work, the likelihood of the sustained funding these writers seek is remote.
At the end of the day, these former astronauts must learn it's not about them-it's about us.

"Our space leadership is a projection of this country's technical capability leveraged to foster peaceful cooperation among nations in a politically uncertain world."

Can someone tell me what % of the 'parts/technology/processes' that went into Apollo were 'made in America'?
And what % today do we think we have in the development of Cx?

@A Reader:

Amen, chum. A-frickin'-men.

There's gotta be better ways to spread the gospel, for crying out loud. This ain't 1969.

ISS - Pretty much everything in Apollo was designed, manufactured, or built in the US, from the Saturn 1B and Vs to the Apollo CSM and LM to all the engines and electronics.

North American was the lead on the CSM, and Grumman on the LM; Rocketdyne (part of NAA) did all the LV engines (F-1 and J-2); the launch vehicle stages (S-1, S-II, and S-IV) were Boeing and McDonnell Douglas; Chrysler (as the prime for what had been ABMA) had a role on the Saturn IB. Northrop had the CM recovery system, IIRC, and Aerojet had the LAS, I think...

If Constellation is re-sized to a ISS/LEO LV-HSF vehicle, with a LO/LL phase as a follow-on, then the obvious contenders would be Boeing (Delta IV-H); P&W Rocketdyne (RS-68); a Northrop Grumman-Boeing JV to update the Apollo CSM and LM and, presumably, an upper stage based on updated RL-10s and/or J-2s (both P&W at this point); the above would be a relatively straightforward solution to STS replacement, based largely on legacy designs or material that is in production.

LM's EELV is a no-go because the engines are Russian-built; likewise, as bad as Ares I is, there really needs to be a light shown on the LM Orion procurement, as well; it was equally questionable, especially given LM's record on the X-33 and utter lack of HSF experience.

@TF Smith "given LM's ... and utter lack of HSF experience."

LM manufactures the ET for the STS, manufactured large parts of the ISS, and had substantial experience at JSC in software for ISS and STS, building crew equipment and other payloads. Their experience in HSF is on a par with Northrup-Grumman. And JSC's experience with Boeing on ISS is one (smaller) factor that was part of the selection of LM for Orion.

I can remember 1972 when my parents were freaking out about money and I was enjoying another bowl of puffed rice with poorly reconstituted nonfat dry milk. There was a billboard near Boeing that said "will the last one to leave Seattle please turn out the lights!" Obama saved the bankers and the auto companies, but is there enough stimulus money to save NASA?

Editor's note: If you were not so busy dumping on Obama, Tony, and checked the news once in a while as well as NASA's procurement website, you'd see that NASA has been getting Recovery.gov money. But no, all you want to do is dump on Obama.

If NASA seemed remotely interested in space solar power, which could be of some tangible benefit to the tax payer, I would say that they had shot at some stimulus money. Too bad they didn't mention that upfront.

Keith,

I think Obama has done a great thing with cash for clunkers, and bailing out the banks, and saving the domestic auto companies. I actually hope cash for clunkers starts up again when the mass produced all electric cars come out next. I was not aware that NASA had gotten any stimulus money, thanks for pointing it out! How much did they get? I did a quick guesstimate that with 700,000 higher mpg cars saving an average of 500 bucks a year on gas, that program will probably pay for itself in less than ten years. Go Obama! If he directs NASA towards a solar powersat program I will be even happier.

Editor's note: maybe you will do a little research before you make such another ignorant post in the future - and fight the urge to bash Obama first and ask questions later.

The Asstronauts have spoken. All we need to do to fix NASA is throw more money at it. NASA doesn't need to do anything different, they just need more money from us. We are the real problem, the stingy US taxpayers. We should be more than happy to buy their way to a dream career. After all, they get to be big shots at NASA and then slip out the revolving door into a much more lucrative position at a NASA contractor's facility. If they live. Hey Asstronauts, I've got something for you, and it isn't money.

Frank Seitzen argues unless and until the American people feel some direct benefit from this work, the likelihood of the sustained funding these writers seek is remote.

So maybe it's time to call the whole thing off. I know what I'd like from a manned space program -- colonization of the solar system and exploitation of its resources. But how in hell this becomes something of "direct benefit" to the American people, something they can "feel" is theirs, a la the Panama Canal or Alaskan oil reserves, totally escapes me. Indeed, in my best of all imagined worlds, it never would -- the colonized worlds would "benefit" the colonists, rather as the colonies that became the USA primarily benefited Americans and immigrants rather than Great Britian.

So maybe Barak Obama should look at the Augustine 2 report and recoil -- as I gather he already has -- and simply give a press conference announcing that the US is (a) too poor, (b) too technologically backward, (c) too politically polarized, and (d) too culturally paralyzed to consider future manned space. The US will refrain from attempts to send people to the moon, to Mars, or to other heavenly bodies once the space station is deorbited. The US government points out that the "Moon Treaty" of the late 1960's was never ratified by this nation, and that the considered view of the US government now is that any nation or corporate entity or individual who wishes to claim the moon or a piece of the moon or other heavenly body is free to do so without our objection. The skies are open, the heavens are free to those who claim them, and the United States forever resolves to place no claims in space.

There's change we can believe in!

I'm not going to use my time/space hereto bash the President; nor will I stick up for him. There is plenty of that on both sides already.

I will comment on the sad fact that the group of astronauts mentioned would have probably drawn more respect for their comments if they weren't well paid highered guns at ATK, LockMart etc... but alas they are and as such they are no better than the politicos who are busy micromanaging NASA to death. By that I mean they are doign to Americas space program what congress did to the military during Vietnam. Putting forth unrealistic unattainable expetations then wanting someones head on a stick when things get ugly.

Here's hoping that the President (of whom I DID NOT vote for) will realize the danger our country faces if we ceede the high ground to others while we count the "pennies" we saved by banishing manned space flight only to lament not having enough $$$$ for all the social woes of the world.

Ad Astra!! Go Falcon 9!!!

@anona:

"LM manufactures the ET for the STS, manufactured large parts of the ISS, and had substantial experience at JSC in software for ISS and STS, building crew equipment and other payloads. Their experience in HSF is on a par with Northrup-Grumman. "

Goes to show you that you don't understand what it takes to build a flight vehicle. Nothing else new here.

Grumman built the LM and Rockwell built Apollo and Shuttle. What kind of crewed re-entry vehicle did LockMart build again? The ET for STS? Yeah great!

"And JSC's experience with Boeing on ISS is one (smaller) factor that was part of the selection of LM for Orion."

It is THE only factor if the Constellation manager at NASA happen to be ISS managers as well... Now, are they? Any one knows?

@Frank Sietzen: "At the end of the day, these former astronauts must learn it's not about them-it's about us."

Spot on!! Somewhere along the way this important and crucial fact has gotten lost by our space program, and by our astronaut corps...

@Editor: Re: Tony Rusi:

"If you were not so busy dumping on Obama, Tony, and checked the news once in a while as well as NASA's procurement website, you'd see that NASA has been getting Recovery.gov money. But no, all you want to do is dump on Obama."

"maybe you will do a little research before you make such another ignorant post in the future - and fight the urge to bash Obama first and ask questions later."

Thank you!

But unfortunately Tony is not the only one... At this stage and considering all that is available here and elsewhere including the HSF review site, I am not sure what any one can do to get over this kind of post. Those guys still don't get it, at best! So I'll try again: "Divide and rule" is the motto of the status quo. People making such statements as Tony's do not want the HSF program to go anywhere but in the ditch and then blame [put you preferred name here] for it. Today it is the current WH. Tomorrow?

"I am not sure what any one can do to get over this kind of post"

Ratings / peer review

Forget about bashing Obama for NASA's fatal flaws. There's reason enough for all sides concerned to bash away at him for lots of real and tangible reasons as it is... but he's not responsible for getting NASA into the mess that it's in.

(Indeed... if you must argue politics, it would seem that 30 years of Republican ascendancy and 8 years of de facto control might have had a lot more to do with NASA's condition than a guy who was seated as Prez just last January.)

But Obama has been stuck with making critical decisions for the NASA that exists now... and it's not the NASA that went to the moon.

NASA has done great stuff and still does great stuff but what stands out is the lies and deceptions, the mismanagement and arrogance... and topped off like a cherry with small details like corporate policy overriding scientific investigation in the climate change issue and religious fanatics walking around NASA altering official NASA web documents to better reflect Creationist beliefs.

That ain't your father's NASA.

"We did the Moon shot!" is fine for a resume even if it is somewhat dated. It is not a definition of what NASA should be doing as America's space agency.

NASA has needed a better and much firmer definition of itself for decades and now it will get one... for the better or for the worse.

And the one making the decisions that will redefine NASA is neither a liberal or a neocon or a socialist or even a muslim extremist... he's a corporatist, centrist, almost DLC-esque Democrat from Illinois who talks a good line for the left but deals straight down the middle in real life.

... but, unfortunately, trying to walk that center after the oversteered swerve to the right that took the country over a cliff has resulted in badly skewed perceptions of him: with the left seeing him as veering dangerously back towards the path of his immediate predecessor and the right viewing him has the reincarnation of Chairman Mao with purges shortly to follow.

People should deal with the concept of Obama redefining NASA from the reality of what Obama actually is... not what they might wish him to be or what they might fear him to be.

Dear Mike,
Colonization of the solar system and all that would be required to make that happen-could well be considered a direct benefit to the American public. But the science, the engineering, the technologies that would accrue from this and other exploration programs must be EXPLAINED in plain English to average folk. And a connection made between spacesuits and first responders, imaging systems and breast cancer detection, on and on.
To suggest otherwise is to live in an elitist paradise where the exploration impulse dominates all others.
When I say it's about us, I mean it should be seen as enhancing the lives of everyday, ordinary people, not just the handful of astronauts that fly aboard government vehicles. I mean, we have moved beyond the "oh what a wonderful view outside the windows" kind of drivel and start the detailed reportage of the kazillion things that flow from strong leadership of civil space.

NASA just simply needs more money and we can do anything we want.

So the astronauts want "stability" for NASA? How so? As in, level funding for stupid ideas? This is the old "even though we're making mistakes hand over fist, we're really good, so please keep sending money".

The most important thing NASA needs is good ideas and competent leadership, not "stability".

Frank Seitzen --

I don't think I'm in an elitist paradise (I'm in LA county, and boy is this not paradise at the moment!). But I don't think everything must be explained to the average voter -- let NASA buckle down to planetary colonization with a serious plan, working hardware, and a decent budget and a hundred thousand bloggers will provide all the explanations anyone can need (and a great deal of disinformation, too, I admit). We don't need to "sell" this to the public; just do it and those with an interest will appear.

As for the notion that spaceflight ought to belong to "the handful of astronauts that fly aboard government vehicles". who's saying that? Really, who has EVER said that, except a handful of Libertarian fruitcakes? The whole point of a manned space program has always been that it would be the start of opening up space for the entire human race, and that goal has driven space enthusiasts ever since the 1930's. Do you really think that Arthur C. Clark and Willy Ley and Werner von Braun spent their lives extolling the virtues of spaceflight with the intent of installing Nazi Gauleiters across the heavens, ruthlessly dictating the actions of half a dozen robot explorers?

Get a grip,man!

@AstroBoy @A Reader:
Amen, chum. A-frickin'-men

Seconded!!

Maybe they're trying to play Bill Nelson and/or Bolden.
Nelson is apparently impressed with astronauts & vulnerable to the wanting to be part of their club thing.

I'm most disappointed with Crippen, Halsell, & Hieb.

All 3 should know better as they directly worked on the post-Challenger inhouse audits & process review teams.

Seems like Crippen's wife, Pandora(?), used to be a NASA KSC Shuttle engineer back then - worked on ground systems pad design I think, and both worked on the in-house Challenger audit & process review teams.

Halsell's wife used to be in KSC Shuttle Program Controls too, (back when it was seperate from PM & engineering).

Think Hieb participated in the Challenger ground software review team.

If Shuttle DDTE functioned back then the way CxP has been, Shuttle wouldn't have made it through STS-1.......

They either don't know what's really been going on down in the lower CxP ranks (contractor & NASA) or have really become Lost in Space!

Siegfried: "NASA just simply needs more money and we can do anything we want."

Ah, yes, more money. Heard it before. I'm sure we'll hear the refrain in a few years again. A solution to every problem. Like duct tape. Except it is NEVER enough and they will be back in line come next authorization.

Poor NASA. billions of $ and years of time and they cant' even service the space station soon. Let's give them a blank check so they can continue to sidestep the solution staring them in the eye - EELVs (and later falcon, taurus)

Anona -

Actually, the two current organizations with legacy experience in every US manned space system are (wait for it): Boeing and Northrop (with an "o") Grumman.

X-15 (North American/Rockwell/Boeing);
Mercury (McDonnell/Boeing);
Gemini (same as Mercury)
Apollo CSM (North American/Rockwell/Boeing)
Apollo LM (Grumman/Northrop Grumman)
Skylab (McDonnell (S-IVB) to Boeing)
STS Orbiter (North American/Rockwell/Boeing)
ISS (US lead contractor is and has been Boeing from Day 1)

Lockheed and Martin have no HSF design or manufacturing experience at the system level, period. The closest LM has come is the X-33, and that worked out well, didn't it?

Along with cancelling Ares I/V, the Administration should cancel Orion and give Boeing a contract to design an updated Apollo CSM, sized for a Delta IV-H. IOC on each could beat Ares-Orion by a year or more, easily.

Most of the misguided, acerbic, and negative comments here are worse than the article is being portrayed - Frank's comments excepted. It's obviously a lot easier to whine and sling mud than it is to form a coherent alternative strategy and carry it out.

the colonized worlds would "benefit" the colonists, rather as the colonies that became the USA primarily benefited Americans and immigrants rather than Great Britian.

Do you really believe that the colonies were of no benefit to Great Britain? You might want to brush up on your history (hint: how did Britain become "Great" Britain?).

Grumman built the LM and Rockwell built Apollo and Shuttle.

Decades ago. Companies don't have experience -- people do. And most of the people who were involved in those programs are dead or retired.

NASA just simply needs more money and we can do anything we want.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. NASA has some serious dysfunctions that prevent it from succeeding, regardless of how much money you pour into it. If properly reformed, it could do much more with the money it has.

NASA needs a good spanking, that's all.

The Saturn V stsge contractors were Boeing-S1C, North American-SII,and McDonnell Douglas-SIVB. The first S1C
was manufactured at MSFC. North American later became North American/Rockwell and then Rockwell.

As for the notion that spaceflight ought to belong to "the handful of astronauts that fly aboard government vehicles". who's saying that? Really, who has EVER said that, except a handful of Libertarian fruitcakes?

??

What "Libertarian fruitcake" ever said such a thing? Do you even know what the word "libertarian" means?

I agree with Rand Simberg no matter how much money you have in the bank, a Chemical rocket is a Chemical its costly and dangerous as hell until something else comes along that's all we got and its expensive.

Mike Shupp,

LA County IS paradise! Have you been to Stennis Space Center in Mid July-August?? (Uggghhhh!!!!) Why dry off after a shower? ALSO I'm from NorCal and LA is paradise, oh wait, we have the water, so never mind! (lol)

Mike you make a very good point, there are some who have no real sense of what is up and will post for the sake of posting just to see their name in lights. (Sorry, I got carried away thinking of Hollywood) In the end as I give this more thought and read the postings I realize that in the end we will end up with a manned space flight program that is a mix of public/private. Exploration-public (NASA) Colonization-private(SpaceX, Bigelow etc...)

Ad Astra!!!

"Most of the misguided, acerbic, and negative comments here are worse than the article is being portrayed - Frank's comments excepted. It's obviously a lot easier to whine and sling mud than it is to form a coherent alternative strategy and carry it out."

Which is exactly why this plea from the astronauts is so misguided. Are they offering a coherent alternative strategy? No. Are they offering to support development of such a strategy? No. What they are offering is that investment in space is important to the nation, which is a handwaving answer to a question that has never really come up. They are furthermore saying that the key to this investment is "stability", which can be interpreted either in dollars or engineering architecture. They don't give any justification for either interpretation. If anyone is slinging mud, it's the just mud that these folks are slipping on.

@TF Smith

Boeing bid on Orion and lost...they had their chance.

Sorry Mike but I disagree-and I have firm grip on this keyboard! :)
I suspect I've spent more time with retired astronauts than you have. And although they are indeed American heroes, for the most part (and I say most, not all) they view space flight in the lens of their own careers. Large government-funded programs to fly more people like themselves. Only a relative few-and mainly the younger astronauts-see this in broader, larger terms. One of the exceptions is of course Buzz (full disclosure: I work for Buzz), who has labored long and hard to open up space for average people, passengers, tourists, etc. But even my friend has his biases-Buzz does not think the designation "astronaut" should apply to anyone other than a government flyer.
I once asked a retired shuttle astronaut what he thought of the space tourism movement. The most charitable characterization I can make of his reply was not much.
Again, not every American astronaut feels this way, but many of the older pilot astronauts do see this as the province only of the highly trained, previous-military background selectees.
Let me express again that this generalization does NOT apply to every retired American astronaut!

I agree with Rand Simberg no matter how much money you have in the bank, a Chemical rocket is a Chemical its costly and dangerous as hell until something else comes along that's all we got and its expensive.

For the record, I'm not sure how this person can agree with me on that subject, because I don't believe that. Chemical rockets can be made reliable and cost effective, though it's very unlikely that NASA can do it.

Frank, I agree that, in general, the people whose opinions on getting us into space are least valuable are astronauts, who have their own agenda, particularly the ones on the payroll of companies benefiting from the status quo. Buzz is a notable exception. So was Pete Conrad, and there are others as well, though most of them have left the corps for greener, personal spaceflight pastures.

If Chemical Rockets can be made so much more reliable and cost effective,Then why not just draft us up some plans? Show those whiz kids and think tanks over at NASA what is what.. No? Rocketry has had very little progress other than SRB's ( which btw is still Chemical) Since its early days. Plan and simple 50 years after the Science of Rocketry was born , gravity is still kicking our ass.

Dangerous and expensive that being said, I respect anyone who sits their butt down on a giant roman candle and blast into orbit. I cant complain about Americas space program (because we have one) in general because its hard to get something into LEO. If it was easy every country and private company in the world would be in the space business, but they aren't are they? I appreciate every shuttle launch and every rocket NASA puts into orbit.

What I can complain about is Indecision and loss of a clear cut mission objective or direction and horrible horrible PR and R&D.

PS Ares 1-x ? light the damn candle.

@Rand Simberg:

"Grumman built the LM and Rockwell built Apollo and Shuttle.

Decades ago. Companies don't have experience -- people do. And most of the people who were involved in those programs are dead or retired."

I only was addressing the heritage of HSF. I know very well what the current crowd at NGC and BA does and can do. And even though (most of) the people from that era are gone a few were still around at least at the beginning of the CEV, believe it or not. And they where not LMT people. So, yes, saying they have on-going experience may be a stretch BUT saying LMT is on par is an even longer stretch.

Go check out for yourself if you don't believe me...

@Mudslinger:

"Boeing bid on Orion and lost...they had their chance."

What do you know about the Boeing's bid? Especially it was not Boeing's, it was Northrop-Grumman's bid. Boeing was a sub to NGC. And it was a CEV bid, not Orion.

Get your fact straight then go on and comment.

@Frank Sietzen: Re: Astronaut

I think that Buzz has it right somehow but I also think that his definition of an astronaut will somehow fade away as time passes. We could draw a parallel to aviation: How would you compare a general aviation pilot today to say Saint-Exupéry or Lindbergh or Yeager or any one of those pilots. Yet they are all pilots. Some were actual pioneers like Buzz and I don't think that the term pilot actually comes close to describee what they did achieve in their time.

So in the future someone like Buzz will always be Buzz, a pioneer who happened to be an astronaut.

FWIW.

Frank Seitzen -

You really don't understand where I'm coming from, do you?

I didn't spend 20 years as an aerospace engineer because my
greatest goal in life was boosting a handful of test pilots
into orbit, for the glory of test pilots. I never met an aerospace engineer with that goal.

This from their op ed ...

"We believe that America's space exploration program has positively impacted the world perhaps more than any single national endeavor during the last half century."

Boy, what planet are they living on ... ? I guess one could faintly argue that space access in general, including commercial space and milspace has done this, but human space flight done by them or their buddies, or any flavor of "space exploration" sure didn't. With all due respect to our wonderful accomplishments in space exploration, it's stupid extrapolations like this that make these people look completely dimwitted.

One can point to a vast number of "national endeavors" that have saved lives and improved the quality of life of people. That's how I judge positive impact to the world. Though one can do handwaving about "spinoffs" from space exploration providing these benefits indirectly, that argument is pretty thin when it comes to justifying a statement like this.

So Frank Seitzen, your hat is off to whomever herded these people into a coherent theme? Coherent perhaps. Credible, no.

@common sense.

So, because Boeing was a sub-prime they did not bid on Orion? They were still a major player, and lost.  They still had their chance.

(I know several Boeing ex-employees that were laid off after Boeing & NG lost, which leads me to believe they were hoping for (relying on) winning something on Orion.)

Yes, they also a capsule OPS which was never brought to the table IIRC.

Where did I state something that was not true?

The astronauts missed the point slightly. NASA's budget has been quite stable and constant over the last 4 decades.

NASA really has not managed their stable budget in a way that anyone saw they were going to do new or important things. ISS took forever to fly, and now that it is in orbit NASA failed to line up important payloads to keep it producing. Some of the communities NASA should have been seeking, like student experimenters, NASA science fought down.

Exploration, now ongoing for nearly 5 years, used up a lot of money and yet there is nothing to show for it. While NASA was told to use its budget to lay out a step-by-step approach to do more, NASA tried to take a great leap with a repeat of Apollo and then cried to increase the budget by 25%.

I think what the astronauts were trying to say, but missed, was to maintain continuity of the program's capabilities, and most importantly, maintain the rare skills of the workforce. With the appropriate rationale that is a message that would have and could have been sold to this Administration.

We believe that America's space exploration program has positively impacted the world perhaps more than any single national endeavor during the last half century."

What arrogance! How about global immunization for small pox and polio that actually has saved millions of lives? Or how about the UN's global food program that this morning has already fed over 10 million people? How about clean water and septic systems installed by AID that serve several million? Or how about the development of antiviral drugs that keep nearly 60 million people alive every year? What incredible ego's to think that sending a bunch of people up in tin cans to look out the window helped anyone to any degree similar to these efforts!