Greason: The truth is the truth

Greason is very impressive in that interview. It's hard to find fault with anything he's saying.

I'm sorry -- I simply do not believe the committee's conclusion that we can't move beyond LEO under the existing budget. True enough, the current exploration architecture won't fit under the current budget, but that architecture was optimized to 1) keep all agency centers gainfully employed; and 2) develop the Ares V, a sine qua non for human Mars missions conducted in the Apollo template (i.e., everything launched from the Earth). Both assumptions are highly questionable, but because they have been presented as the "way beyond LEO" for the past five years, the story now is that NASA "doesn't have the money" for exploration. Apparently, the Augustine committee completely buys into this.

An internal Tiger Team study group within NASA in 2004 looked at the quickest, cheapest option to get the Vision off the ground. They found that under existing and projected budgets, we could safely finish ISS and retire the Shuttle, transition to a 60 mT payload Shuttle side-mount using existing hardware, including leftover SSME's, emplace robotic assets on the Moon that could prepare an outpost site and start producing lunar water -- all before the arrival of humans, then planned for 2016.

So why didn't the ESAS pursue this? They wanted Ares V. For Mars missions. But not a Mars mission done intelligently, by launching only key spacecraft and equipment from Earth and producing the propellant for the Mars mission on the Moon -- they wanted a Mars mission conducted in the Apollo mode and staged totally from Earth, an architecture that requires a million-pound spacecraft to be assembled in LEO. They didn't want to put developing and using lunar resources on the "critical path."

Well, they got that part of what they wanted anyway.

This idea that somehow money is the only thing holding us back in space is just flat wrong. What's really holding us back is the current business template of space exploration. Until that changes, we are really going nowhere.

Paul Spudis

I'm very happy that Mr. Greason clarified some of the points that members of Congress and others in the media like the Orlando Sentinel have purposely tried to misconstrue and place words in the committee's mouth. One thing I've heard repeatedly in the last few days is how well executed the Constellation Program has been and how there has been no mismanagement.

If it had been well executed, then NASA would have addressed a number of issues, including funding, the future of ISS, and booster selection, during the course of the program, instead of waiting until yet another independent committee had to be appointed to review the situation. This was inadequate management at the highest levels of NASA beyond the Constellation Program. This was something the AAs for Exploration and Space Ops, the Center Directors at MSFC, JSC, and KSC and the NASA Administrator along with the Constellation Program should have come to grips with years ago.

To paraphrase Mr. Greason, the proof is the proof and the fact that we've spent 5 years and 10 billion dollars and have nothing to show for it except an off-the-shelf Shuttle SRB with some dead weight on top, means that performance has simply been unacceptable. Well-executed; LOL, ROFL.

While those of us in the program know there has been some mismanagement, more than anything else, there is simply inadequate management. We needed competent technical leadership making decisions that would move the program forward with all due haste. If we were being forced to terminate Shuttle, then the human space flight crisis had already begun five years ago.

No one was forcing us to terminate Shuttle. That was a self-imposed decision. Shuttle is recertified before every launch and is probably safer now than ever before in its history.

There was no reason an Orion could not have been developed in five years with the money that the program was receiving. Afterall, as per Dr. Griffin and more recently Mr. Augustine, Orion needed to be nothing more than an enlarged Gemini. Gemini was carried out with a budget a bit more than a billion dollars (page 20), back when we did not know for sure how to do the job. OK, so there is a 20% overhead for political costs that NASA can't control; this meant maybe $1.5 billion was needed.

If they had made the reasonable schedule they had originally identified and it had been flying in 2012, as Dr. Griffin and Mr. Hanley both said, four years ago, could be done, then there would have been no reason to be continuing to talk about the need for Orion and Ares 1 in 2010.

What we needed was competent technical leadership that moved the program forward in all due haste. What we got was a society of consensus seekers who, for fear of not hurting one another's feelings never even tried to address the tough questions.

What is most notable about the comprehensive and well integrated Augustine committee report is that it contains few if any surprises. Everything in the report was well known. If NASA had been doing its job the issues that are now a full-blown crisis would have been addressed years ago.

Dear Paul-
My friend, you are going to have to make peace with the following, IMHO (speaking only for me and not NASA or anybody else):
1. The Moon is likely to be removed from the centrality of U.S. human spaceflight for the remainder of our lifetimes;
2. The existing "template" will be the framework for human spaceflight at the federal level for the next two decades, possibly longer. Good,bad or indifferent.
The biggest battle looming in Congress will be over added funds and over who gets to build what space capsule.
I'm afraid that's going to be it.

I think you're right Mr. Sietzen. With a very few exceptions, I don't think the political class much cares about the science, the exploration, the adjectives the nation in technology, or even the implications for planetary defense, because we all know that can't really happen. They might care a little bit about national defense, but mostly they've you NASA as a nationwide jobs program. A friend of mine says that that is the blessing & the curse of James Webb. The fact that these people only care about jobs in their district, we'll keep the tap open, but just above life support levels. But the people on Capitol Hill will never give the NASA Administrator the freedom to redirect funds into any location he needs to accomplish the overall goals. I don't see anything wrong with the current architecture if adequately fund from the get go, but I'm not an engineer. I think the architecture is going to be sustained because of the vested interests involve at each particular Center, or contractor, or subcontractor involved with the Ares I & V. We may or may not get the extra $3 million, but I predict everything will be kept rolling along at in ever slower and slower pace, but everyone will keep working and the money distribution won't change. Some people like me once the funding stream to be increased greatly. That won't happen. Some people want radical change in the way this business is done believing are salvation lies in the miracles of commercial enterprise. I don't think that sky happen either. I think we are going to stay in the muddy middle.

The real issue facing the space exploration community is not system architecture, vehicle design, Moon vs Mars, jobs in Congressional districts, or anything that most in the space community typically want to discuss.

The reality is that our nation is becoming a debtor nation and we are facing a fiscal train wreck within our lifetimes. Review the GAO's latest report on our fiscal outlook -- by 2030, most of the federal budget will be devoted SOLELY to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments on the debt. By 2040, every penny of federal revenue will be devoted to that spending, and anything beyond that (defense, transportation, education, homeland security, R&D, etc) will have to be financed with more debt. The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-137SP.

The debates today over human vs robotic exploration, system architecture, etc, will be moot. We have to get serious as a nation about restoring fiscal responsibility in order to even contemplate a future that includes space exploration (unless a truly compelling and wholly-commercial market emerges).

I know this is off topic .. Why does everyone say this A-1x needs a launch window? Is it going into orbit? no. Is it going to rendezvous with ISS? no. Not even LEO with a sat. payload delivery , just 40 k in the air? I think I'm right when I say 62 miles is just sub orbital. I saw some of the segments and they were made from freaking plywood.. Why in the hell is it costing 450 million is that including R&D? I mean a shuttle not including SRB's and EXt tank cost 1.7 billion. Is that how much the final ARES is gonna cost? Or is that for the mock up?SO again back to my original question.. Whats with needing a launch window for flight that isn't even sub-orbital?

Frank,

What do you suggest -- just give up and let them run our national space program into the ground? Should we all just go off into the corner, assume the fetal position and whimper for the rest of our lives?

You seem to have given up hope on reforming the program. I'll point out that the very fact that we got the Vision in the first place and that at least some smart, innovative people in the agency had a way to implement it as originally intended indicates that it is not completely hopeless. If I thought it was, I just wouldn't say anything.

What I will not do is go gently into that good night, thank you very much. Yes, you are probably right on all your points. But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and let them destroy everything a lot of us have worked for all our lives without at least raising one hell of a big stink about it.

Cordially,
Paul

Fred, I'm pretty sure it's the Range that needs a formal window. Safety and all that. You need permission from the Range to launch a bottle rocket.

And thanks for all the great parts you and Lamont scrounged up for NASA to use. The thrusters look really sharp.

Say hi to Aunt Ester!

All launches need a launch window. It is for crew scheduling and Range coordination.

by 2030, most of the federal budget will be devoted SOLELY to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments on the debt.
snip
We have to get serious as a nation about restoring fiscal responsibility in order to even contemplate a future that includes space exploration

If we want to speak about basing things on facts: The facts you cite above clearly state that we are already, for all intents and purposes, a socialist nation. Where you spend your money is what you are. That is a fact. And now we wish to spend even more money we do not have on a new social handout (health care)?

I am absolutely flabbergasted that people in this country cannot see our financial woes as pretty much exactly the same thing that happened to the USSR. And we did it to them. Don't you people "get" what has been, and continues to go on? Your worries about VSE/ARES/Human Space Exploration amount to fiddling while Rome burns.

I agree with HillStaff that fiscal responsibility is what is needed. It has to begin at home, which a large majority of American citizens are now being forced to deal with it. The problem is, those elitists who command power on the Hill are NOT YET being forced to deal with it. Please clean up the idiots on the Hill, HillStaff. For the sake of our nation... no more dumping money in ANY KIND of black hole! And to each of us, cleaning up the Hill means turning our backs on BOTH the Democratic AND Republican Parties. They are both toxic waste that continue to serve their own power elite, not the American people.

The truth: IF the money is coming from the government, then NASA needs to spread the spending out across country and with numerous NASA centers. This spreading out leads to inefficiencies including coordination issues and introduces the need for layers of management. Without spreading out the funds, the program will die in congress.

The truth is we still need to define a goal (not a destination, not a vehicle). Let us hope the government's fiscal house gets fixed. Let us hope the new goal focuses on building an aerospace industry for the future. The hope to have a NASA that is focused on going to the moon is gone. The hope that the "flexible option" is specific enough for the Congress appears to be hard sell.

Without a Space Shuttle type of vehicle, the hopes of the youth are dashed and space will become boring, real boring. Is it too late to bring up and discuss a next generation Space Shuttle (winged, more reliable,smaller-focused on human transport, etc.)?

"All launches need a launch window. It is for crew scheduling and Range coordination. "
Ok, range coordination? what the hell are the coordinating?There are 2 rockets to "coordinate" on the launch pad at KSC.. 1 shuttle which we know when that launch is.. I think its just pomp and circumstance.. There is no valid reason beyond building drama . I'm the biggest supporter or NASA I know .. But this 2 vehicle system is just a bad idea.. twice the chance for something to go wrong.. As for crew scheduling uh hello its a dummy test vehicle. How hard is it to say listen guys, ask the range if we can launch this rocket.. yes or no.. Ok thanks appreciate it.. All the test have been done I think its just bs red tape and ty Lamont and I work tirelessly to provide NASA with extra parts :D

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html

oh that's the flight schedule.. Wow seems pretty coordinate already :|

Paul, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
Find value in what we will have and live to fight again another day.
According to the average for patients with End Stage Renal Disease and on hemodialysis life expectancy before transplant (the wait for which in the DC area is 5-7 yrs; i just passed the 2 year mark)is 30 percent survival after five years, 10 percent after ten. I don't have the luxury to wait for a revolution-I have to make due with the hand that we have been delt.
Under that situation space capsules and comet flybys don't look so bad-especially with commercial crew and cargo getting NASA out of the spacelift business.
I've waited all my life for miracles; Keith is right-this is NASA's last chance to get "it" right...

Yeah, more scary projections. But they must rely on extrapolation scenarios, as in "everything somehow continues just as it's going, except population grows." That's unrealistic. All kinds of changes will occur at the same time: new technologies, new markets, China and India emerging as major consumers of energy AND producers of renewable energy, US govt and companies responding, .... The wild cards in play are enormous, and not very susceptible to extrapolation.

Besides, if we're talking about trillions of dollars of red ink, how does the $3B/year increment, or all of NASA's budget for that matter, count for more than a teaspoon in the sea? What if indeed the investment in NASA provides huge leverage and payoff to the country -- then spending less would be a bad idea.

We have to be cautious about considering NASA and HSF too simplistically -- i.e. the ONLY thing to consider is [the economy, the national debt, energy independence, science leadership, jobs, FLA politics, ....]

Frank,

half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

And no loaf at all is better than a rotten one.

I am not particularly concerned with what transpires in space in my own lifetime. I want us to follow the right path, even if that means that my grandchildren will be the only ones to benefit by it. The path that we are following -- the Apollo template, in which everything we need in space has to be dragged up from the bottom of the gravity well we live in -- is mass- and power-limited and thus, forever capability-limited. And it is not sustainable in technical, fiscal or political terms.

I know there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy with this mode of business. They get to decide what's important, where we're going, and what we do there. They are also perfectly happy that space exploration consumes wealth rather than produces it. It's all about their power and influence.

I want a different future, one with many possibilities and many players, all of them exploring, using and living in space. A constant progression of flags-and-footprints PR space stunts may be good entertainment (for a very short while) but they are not the basis for long-term human presence and prosperity in space.

Papa,

Besides, if we're talking about trillions of dollars of red ink, how does the $3B/year increment, or all of NASA's budget for that matter, count for more than a teaspoon in the sea? What if indeed the investment in NASA provides huge leverage and payoff to the country -- then spending less would be a bad idea.

In order to validate that "what if...?" statement of yours, it would require that NASA adhere to two principles of development investment:

1) A rigourous "Return On Investment" (ROI) analysis and business case would have to be made for ALL agency programs... just like what happens in all non-governmental businesses that wish to remain in business. A project has to earn its funding based on a relatively conservative ROI being identified.

2) An independent agency (GAO?) would have to rigorously track the projected ROI to verify that the projected ROI was met within some (previously agreed-upon) statistical margin.

In other words, what I am saying is "No more 'what ifs' that are nothing more than pie in the sky where the pie is never realized!" We (I, the American taxpayer) can no longer afford to do it the old NASA way.

Frank,
Don't underestimate the effect that a China moon flyby (or something similar) would have politically and socially. If Americans are anything, it's competitive, and we'd hate to see another country threatening to leapfrog our achievements. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to the U.S. manned space program is the success of China's manned space program.

After all, competition with Russia is what got us to the moon so quickly in the first place.

Dave

I think the average American's response to China landing on the Moon: a big yawn. And they'd also say-let them land anywhere they want so long as they keep buying our debt!