Detailed NASA Budget Materials Now Online

I'm wondering if we have come full circle on an old much quoted bit of wisdom...

No Buck Rogers..... no bucks.

Will America sign off on a NASA budget that effectively removes HSF at NASA?

CessnaDriver - It signed off on Constellation, which has done more to endanger US human spaceflight than the Obama budget.

Here's the meat-on-the-bones that folks have been waiting for-and what a smorgusboard it is. ESMD will compete $25 million a year for advanced rocket concepts. And $5 million to open an "participatory exploration office". This series of advanced research goals even surpasses the old HIPRPT joint efforts. The mission to Mars begins with this research. Surely we can all support this?

Yes, there is lots of excellent stuff in here. In some ways, it's like moving from flying Cessna-like S/C forever, to actually working on turbo systems!

When you combine in the new ST work, advanced capability work moves from

Obviously we still need to see a roadmap, and that's going to come from NASA after proper think time, but these new details show a very good division in development processes that have been on hold since before 2007.

So we can at least move from the 1930s concepts we presently use in HSF to 1950s ones, and hopefully beyond! In particular it really seems to recognize that, almost weekly, the international commercial space industry launches and operates S/C all on their own, with no space agencies involved, and builds on that know-how.

Though I would like to see some real thinking of why we need an HLV. If Orbital Depots work out, it's been known since the late 1940s that you don't need HLV.

"Top line increase of $6.0 billion over 5-years (FY 2011-15) compared to the FY 2010 Budget,
for a total of $100 billion over five years."

Did I read that right? A reduction of 94 billion over the next 5 years? What a huge number! I guess they looked at a retiring shuttle and said here's our opportunity to save this money. 50 - 60 million a seat on the Soyuz. 6 x that would be around 300 million or so, at 400 - 500 million a launch per sts. I guess that's saving some money but giving up access to space in the mean time.Reading Space x launch manifest The ISS is going to be depending on it ALOT in the coming years I really hope they are up to the task. Ok if its commercial who is paying them the tax payer? Commercial space flight means they are out to make a profit. Is that possible with any to LEO launch system to make a sustainable profit?

@warp -- I totally agree with that last part --

LEO Refueling, we need it to go beyond LEO without it costing an arm and a leg its true.And I have been screaming about us using the same basic technology for the last 60 years. I mean Don't we have composite materials that make the weight to fuel ratio better than 60 years ago? Chemistry has gone nowhere to developing better fuels over the last 60 years?

WHY IS GRAVITY STILL KICKING OUR ASS?

@ cesnadriver

its " No bucks , No Buck Rodgers"

And it still rings true. DAMN THE GRAVITY!

Here is the line most telling to me regarding the "Exploration" budget and how it compares to the proposed FY10 budget going forward:

- 1,813.2 billion for 2011
- 1,451.1 billion for 2012
- 1,247.6 billion for 2013
- 1,272.0 billion for 2014

So basically, over the next four years the President's budget removes 5.8 billion from what the exploration budget was forecast to be.

How nice...

And we're going to get to the moon and mars faster by giving exploration less money?

I like the first stage kerolox engine focus with the goal of a production engine by decades end. I suppose that means theyve ruled out the EELV growth options. Unless they plan to make it available to commercial providers.

A lot of long overdue HSF research stuff in there as well.

First-Stage Launch Propulsion: NASA’s efforts in this area will focus on development of a U.S. core stage hydrocarbon engine that would be suitable for use in a future heavy-lift rocket or as the first stage of a future launch vehicle. A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene) engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180 engine.

The level of funding for this project is intended to result in a fully operational engine by the end of this decade or perhaps sooner if a DOD partnership is established.
---------------------------------------------------
SO, 10 years from now we should have a HLV ENGINE !

Are you kidding me? AN ENGINE.

I can see Congress now: So Mr. Bolden at the end of 10 years in working towards a HLV, we will have an ENGINE? Not a HLV, but just a piece of a HLV? And this engine that you are developing, it will have the same or more thrust than a Russian rocket which is already in use since 1999 has? So, in 2020 your plan is to have an engine that is as powerful as something developed in 1999? How is this exactly game changing technology or something that will get us to Mars in weeks instead of months?

Well guys, I must say on this budget we are not getting out of LEO anytime soon!!!

The new tour buses at KSC can show off the new "engine".................whoopeeeee

Those budget details look really great. This is a much brighter future for beyond-LEO manned spaceflight. The near-term flagship demonstrator projects outlined in the exploration section are exactly the sorts of technologies we need for sustainable beyond-LEO exploration, and the demonstrations ensure that we have visible results:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf

* in-orbit propellant transfer/storage
* lightweight/inflatable modules
* automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking
* closed-loop life support system demonstration on the ISS
* Aerocapture, and/or entry, descent and landing (EDL) technology

The smaller "enabling technologies" demonstrations to be initiated in FY2011 are also promising:
* in situ resource utilization
* Autonomous Precision Landing
* Advanced In-Space Propulsion
* Closed-loop life support systems
* Extravehicular Activity Demonstrations
* Radiation Shielding Technology
* Human-Robotic Interactive Systems Demonstrations
* High-Efficiency Space Power Systems
* Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) Technology
* High-Performance Materials and Structures

This snippet bothers me:

"The Flight and Ground Operations budget for T&R includes resources needed to identify, process, safe, and transfer flight and ground assets once they are no longer needed for safe SSP mission execution. The T&R budget includes funds needed for assets such as the Mission Control Center, the launch pads, the Vehicle Assembly Building, and the Launch Control Center to prepare these assets for modification, and use for future needs, or transferred to other users or disposed if appropriate.. For assets such as the Mobile Launch Platforms, the Orbiter Processing Facilities, and landing site hardware that NASA no longer needs after Space Shuttle retires, Flight and Ground Operations T&R funding is used to ensure that the property is safed of hazardous materials and ready for either transfer to other Federal government users or disposition."

So we are loosing Shuttle and CxP, possibly the NASA Astronaut Corp., and now also possibly also loosing MCC, LCC, VAB, and\or the pads?

I sincerely hope there are more modifications than disposals in that line item.

@ FredSanford

My reversal of the Buck Rogers expression was fully intentional.

America is not going to sign off on this gutting of HSF at NASA.

@ Ferris

Sorry, too many astronauts are lining up against this disasterous direction for me to buy any of it..

Cernan,Carpenter,Borman,Jones,Schmitt,Duke,Rominger,Cunningham

And that list will grow!

"If Orbital Depots work out, it's been known since the late 1940s that you don't need HLV."

I would like to see you come up with mass estimates for any significant manned mission beyond the moon. Even with VASMIR, which may eliminate the benefits of orbital depots, you're still going to need a lot of EELVs.

Not quite. Some of ESMD's tasking more over to the new Space Technology program. That budget moves over there. There is a reshuffle as well as line item changes.

I note that I messed up a line in my earlier comment. Advanced capability-type R&D is moving from less than $500M up to $3B. That is where we get the solar system.

warp,

"I note that I messed up a line in my earlier comment. Advanced capability-type R&D is moving from less than $500M up to $3B. That is where we get the solar system."

Yep. This is exactly what we who were behind the budget were expecting. This is blowing my mind. Intuitively, I was right.

NASA is freaking back. I am blown away.

We don't need any breakthrough technologies to build a heavy lift vehicle or to place space depots into orbit or at a Lagrange Point. We just need to do it!

And if you want to take humans to Mars, just build a really really big aluminized kite at a Lagrange point. Light sails weighing less than 100 tonnes should be capable of transporting several thousand tonnes to Mars in less than a year-- without any fuel. That's plenty enough payload capability to transport a manned space craft plus mass shielding to Mars. Plenty.

Marcel F. Williams

"The T&R budget includes funds needed for assets such as the Mission Control Center, the launch pads, the Vehicle Assembly Building, and the Launch Control Center to prepare these assets for modification, and use for future needs, or transferred to other users or disposed if appropriate."
@waste---Notice the "...and use for future needs, or transferred to other users..." Hopefully this is the key enabler to allow NASA to provide "services in kind" to the commercial crew launch guys since there is NO WAY they could afford (much less want to) to develop and have certified all of the necessary (read MANDATORY) "man-rated" mission ops (training, MCC, Ground ops, network comm, recovery, etc. etc.) that will be required by NASA (and FAA and AF) to "lease or buy" the "private" launch and on orbit crew delivery vehicles for missions to the ISS, or anywhere else in LEO! So, in exchange for these "services in kind" NASA will lease at a much discounted rate from the private lessors, SpaceX, Bigelow, Branson or whomever! That's the ONLY way the so-called "privatization of HSF" can have a CHANCE of happening! (Cargo flights are an easier, but not easy, story!)
Also, don't forget "...modification for future use"---could mean modifying to accomodate Shuttle-derived HLVs, etc.
Actually, all this budget language is QUITE ENCOURAGING--maybe, just maybe, NASA's leaders are showing some excellent forethought!

Sb023 - if the only funding was coming from NASA, then I would be concerned. However, since there is money coming from private sources, that are also facilitating human space exploration, we know the total amount spent will be higher

I agree, and I remain hopeful that those types of actions is what will happen. But the word dispose was also used, so I fear it could be that as well. I just hope not.

I challenge anyone to read NASA administrator de facto Lori Garver's remarks without projectile vomiting. "I am energized just imagining all the possibilities, and I know I'm not the only one." What does she think she is, a freakin' kindergarten teacher?

PS: Word to the wise: 'bold', 'game-changing' and 'transformative' are out as the buzzwords du jour (although those hardy perennials are still making a showing). It's now 'innovative'. Will someone please get Lori a new thesaurus?

CessnaDriver - there are a number of astronauts lining up to support Obama's proposal
Buzz Aldrin
Sally Ride
Leroy Chiao
Ken Bowersox
Richard Searfoss

This list will grow, as well.

Besides, you shouldn't base your support or opposition based on the support or opposition of other people - does the plan logically make sense.

And it does

That's it? NASA-funded research for a dual kerosene/cryogenic engine and what amounts to a repeat of the Deep-Space-1 mission?

Wow, the innovation is startling!

> We don't need any breakthrough technologies to build a heavy lift vehicle or to place space depots into orbit or at a Lagrange Point. We just need to do it!

Yup, that's precisely why NASA's new budget includes funding for flagship technology demonstrations, which will start launching no later than 2014.

That said, "just building it" means nothing in the long term if it isn't done in a cost-effective and sustainable way. Sustainable exploration was a key component of both the pre-ESAS Vision for Space Exploration and NASA's new plan.

> That's it? NASA-funded research for a dual kerosene/cryogenic engine and what amounts to a repeat of the Deep-Space-1 mission?

False. You should read the budget details before making further incorrect statements.

First off all there's no serious funding in the budget for immediately building a heavy lift vehicle. And that could easily be done by building a shuttle derived Jupiter core rocket.

Secondly,the Obama budget is not politically sustainable as long as NASA is not building anything and doesn't have any specific goals. That's why people are frustrated and angry.

Third, you learn a lot more by actually building something and deploying something rather than just sitting around dreaming about the future.

If we had never built the space shuttle, I'm pretty sure that there would still be a lot of folks out there sitting around saying: all we have to do is build this reusable space plane and the cost of space travel will fall dramatically! But when we finally built this break through technology, we found out the true realities of this theory. But that's how you learn!

Marcel F. Williams

"does the plan logically make sense.

And it does"

God no.

It does not!

There is no logic to cancelling HSF at NASA and spreading the already thin funds to the four winds of commerical that has not demonstrated anything yet!

Again, if commercial was so kick butt over NASA...

They should have passed up NASA decades ago!

Where is the commercial shuttle?
Where is the commercial crewed LEO vehicle?
Where is the commercial footprints on the moon?
Where is the commercial space station?

Answer....

They don't exist! and they won't for a very long time. NASA has demonstrated ability to do ALL those things.

Where is the logic and expecting them to with a track record of nothing?

Your astronaut list is shorter then mine and will not grow by the way. :P

I have more Apollo guys too!

Yeah, the new budget - it's got everything!

It's got "Early Stage Innovation"!
It's got "Game Changing Technologies"! (they really like that phrase.)
It's got "Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations"!

Yes, it's got everything - everything that is, except a Human Spaceflight Program.

Someone needs to tell Holdren that we already have a National Science Foundation for funding science research.

NASA is supposed to be in the business of space exploration, including
human space exploration. That means you build spacecraft and you get in the spacecraft and you go somewhere. We need to just do it!

Dozens of "pick your favorite" research projects are not going to get us anywhere for a long time. Well, we'll build some nice toys in the lab and write up some nice research papers.

But we won't go anywhere. But we sure will identify some crosscutting capabilities, that's for sure. Whoopee!

Let's review. After the Columbia accident the CAIB recommended requalifying the STS in 2010 or retiring it for something else. We chose to retire the shuttle (prematurely in my opinion) and go with Constellation.

What do we do now? make mid course corrections?
No! We kill everything. No new spacecraft - kill the new program.
No existing spacecraft - retire the existing program.

Great. We're left with nothing. Nothing now and nothing planned!
Except all the game changing science projects.

Enjoy those last few shuttle flights. A steady stream of lasts for US HSF.
Nothing like taking a spaceplane that can perform in orbit repair, supply the ISS, act as a science platform (remember the Shuttle Orbiting Imaging Radar?) A spaceplane that re-enters the atmosphere at Mach 25 and lands on an airstrip and we're tossing that capability away. Yeah, I know it's old and no good - like a B-52, or a C-130, or a 747 or a T-38 or a Learjet or a ... I can't even watch the Shuttle on TV anymore. It sickens me that we are going to stop flying.

I know, I know. The private sector will innovate like crazy and in 5-10 years get the US to where we were in 1965 and where the Russians and Chinese are right now.

The bold new vision of US Human Spaceflight.

Amen.

Way too many folks are equating "flying into space" with HSF, though. The work folks like me do in arctic exploration (for analog exploration) is no less arctic exploration because we pay somebody else to fly there. We have the ISS - the US will continue to have a majority share of a massive facility in orbit, and will have crew on that facility, until at least 2020. Who cares how we get to it? Isn't using it, learning from it, living in it, working in it, why we are there? Augustine showed that, without these changes, we would have been out of this, real, HSF game in 2016 or earlier, with little useful spaceflight until the 2030s.

We don't need to be in the 1930s concept game of trying to get into orbit. We know how to do that. We need to concentrate on working in space in a fully sustainable fashion. STS was awesome, but its running costs were crazy. CxP's were even crazier. If we look at the weekly launches the COTS industry prsently does, with Comsats, etc, with the small teams they use, or, correspondingly, DoD launches, on commercial birds, it becomes obvious that the LEO functions can be accomplished commercially, and NASA can concentrate on what we do once we're in space, instead of working on concepts even Von Braun complained were outdated in the 1950s.

Spaceflight R&D needs to be done on flying in space, not to it. Or else nothing we do will be sustainable. Remember that even Apollo couldn't be sustained (NASA's budget, as many folks point out, was approaching twice, in converted $'s, what we have for the entire agency now). Von Braun and others points out that Apollo was a quick a dirty approach, and not a sustainable approach to spaceflight. We have learned that STS wasn't sustainable. As many in the astronaut office have pointed out - it's time to move on.

So let's stop working out how to make bigger launch systems as our main goal, but work on building human interplanetary S/C. That's real HSF. We need this new budget to enable true HSF, and to save HSF in a useful form. Because flying to LEO is just walking to the door. It's not going out into the black. If we start doing something serious in space, then heavier launch systems will follow, because then they'll be needed.

There is no logic to cancelling HSF at NASA and spreading the already thin funds to the four winds of commerical that has not demonstrated anything yet!

We aren't canceling HSF at NASA - we are commercializing 1 part of it, the Humans Earth to LEO part, while preparing for the next part of it - the Beyond LEO part. And we are preparing for it by working on the technology to make it sustainable.

Where is the commercial shuttle? Where is the commercial crewed LEO vehicle? Where is the commercial footprints on the moon? Where is the commercial space station?Well, we've had 2 of those, and NASA has made it very difficult for them. In the case of Commercial crew LEO vehicle - Soyuz has been fully commercialized. And in the case of commercial space station, again, we had that with Mir. And NASA pushed to destroy that commercial space station. If you get a chance, read Selling Peace - you'll weep over the lost opportunities, that NASA blew.

As for why we haven't had that in the US - because NASA has made it damn near impossible to do commercialized spaceflight. A great example of that is the situation with Payload Systems Inc, and how NASA freaked out over that. (this was in the 80s)

And in case you think it still doesn't go on - there was the recent case of NASA blackmailing Lockheed Martin, because they were looking at providing commercial human spaceflight to a Bigelow station.

They don't exist! and they won't for a very long time. NASA has demonstrated ability to do ALL those things.

They would exist, if we give private enterprise a chance. Oh, and as far as NASA "having demonstrated the ability" - NASA hasn't demonstrated the ability to put a human on the moon in 40 years. NASA has been having serious trouble trying to create a crew taxi to space. NASA has FAILED a number of times trying to produce a shuttle replacement (NASP, X-33, SLI, OSP). And we can of course discuss the problems NASA had with trying to build a space station.

So please don't act like NASA is always hitting home runs, and commercial always strikes out.

Warp, I couldn't have said it better myself

"They would exist, if we give private enterprise a chance."

Would they really? The only reason for NASA program delays and failures is lack of funding. If it takes NASA money to enable the private sector to do all these things, what's going to happen when our government cuts their budget. You think it won't happen? It's happened with every other NASA program. The commercial space industry will be at the will of Congress and the provided budget from one year to the next, just like every other government funded program and all NASA programs of the past. And since we will most definitely have a new president and NASA administrator after the next election, the private sector can kiss their funding good-bye. So when their programs fail due to budget cuts, should we then say that the private sector is inept, or will all you people finally realize that succeeding is about proper funding.

Sorry, but I'm a little tired of all the inaccurate talk of NASA program failures. And let's remember that these aren't just NASA program failures. These are all programs being developed and produced by our commercial space companies. Funding for their programs was cut, and you can bet yours will be, too.

After reading the Exploration Systems and Space Operations Mission Directorates FY2011 budget documents I believe that this is a transistional budget for the human space program. This budget ends 2 of 3 human space flight programs and does not articulate any future goals in space besides transistioning to 'commercial' vehicle to get to LEO.

There are some interesting technology development objectives in the budget but a lot of the development ideas is just filler.

This budget kick the decision about the America's next destination in space to a future President. If , maybe, possibly, somehow sending humans beyond LEO is in some future national interest.

This was very depressing reading and very uninspiring. This budget kills any momentum that human space flight has and does nothing for the future. This budget is a dog.

@Aerospace Engineer

I basically agree whole-heartedly with almost everything in your great post, but one thing I am going to disagree with:

'A spaceplane that re-enters the atmosphere at Mach 25 and lands on an airstrip and we're tossing that capability away.'

I agree that the Shuttle is really, really, cool, but... it's very expensive, in part because lots of it (the TPS, the SSMEs) aren't as simple/cheap/easy to reuse as they were, in theory, going to be. ('The difference between theory and pracise is even bigger in practise than it is in theory.' - S. Crocker)

Sadly ("sadly", because I do think it's an incredibly cool vehicle), I sort of have to agree with Robert C. Truax (program manager for the Thor ballistic missile under Bernard Schriever):

"These [Shuttle design] features, unfortunately, are near and dear to many proponents of reusable vehicles. ... But they make about as much sense as requiring airplanes to be able to land at railroad stations. ... There is no approach for returning a craft to Earth from orbit that is simpler, which costs us less payload, or, I submit, which is either quicker or less costly to develop or operate than the low-L/D parachute-landed spacecraft using water touchdowns"

Emphasis mine, as it's a key point; John R. London wrote:

"To glide to the recovery site and land like an airplane, the Space Shuttle Orbiter must have a host of structures and subsystems dedicated solely for this function. These include wing structure, tail structure, landing gear and associated components, control surfaces, extensive thermal protection, hydraulic systems, and flight control avionics. All of these weighty elements must be hauled into orbit every mission even though they are used only during the final minutes of flight."

Exactly - unfortunately.

To paraphrase Marshal Bosquet ("C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre"), the Shuttle is magnificent, but it's not the future of space travel - at least, not until we get to the point where we can light our cigars with tons of payload at LEO.

The point is, once commercial human spaceflight is established, there will be new sources of revenue, that don't necessarily depend on government sources. For example, private R&D on ISS, or on a Bigelow Station. Or a private astronaut (IE space tourist). Or a university researcher, not affiliated with NASA. Or a researcher from another country, working on a project.

The point is not about creating YET ANOTHER government program that is merely welfare for engineers. The goal is about creating a market, that has private users of human spaceflight. Thus, the point is to create funding sources that are independent of the federal government

Mir and Soyuz were created FULLY under the SOVIET UNIONs massive government!

Bad examples. They in desperation turned to commerical endeavors.

Where is the innovation too?

Still an old design doing old things isn't it?!

Why haven't the Russians done anything beyond LEO then?

"they would exist"

LOL

Sorry no pass there.

They don't exist. Nothing.

Look I am all for commerical endeavors, I WANT government to enable them ok?

Just not at the expense of what NASA does!

Throw them the ISS LEO bone. See how they do, and if they do great, fine then ramp up more.

Throwing the Constellation baby out with the bathwater and putting all eggs in a nacent commerical basket that has ZERO major accomplishments is beyond foolish!

For god sake, split the difference and lets have parallel efforts, THAT is logical.

> The only reason for NASA program delays and failures is lack of funding.

Depending on sentence interpretation, this is either a tautology (anything will be successful eventually if you throw an infinite amount of money at it) or is quite simply false:

GAO Report on "NASA: Key Management and Program Challenges"
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-387T
Developing Systems. A common theme in NASA projects—including the next generation of space flight efforts—is that they cost more and take longer to develop than planned. GAO again found this outcome in a recently completed assessment of NASA’s 19 most costly projects—with a combined life-cycle cost of $66 billion. Within the last 3 years, 10 of the 19 projects experienced cost growth averaging $121.1 million or 18.7 percent, and the average schedule growth was 15 months. A number of these projects had experienced considerable cost growth before the most recent baselines were set.

... Our work has consistently shown that reducing these kinds of problems in acquisition programs hinges on developing a sound business case for each project. Such a business case provides for early recognition of challenges, allows managers to take corrective action, and places needed and justifiable projects in a better position to succeed. Product development efforts that have not followed a knowledge-based business case approach have frequently suffered poor cost, schedule, and performance outcomes. A sound business case includes development of firm requirements, mature technologies, a preliminary design, a realistic cost estimate, and sound estimates of available funding and time needed before the projects proceed beyond preliminary design review. If necessary, the project should be delayed until a sound business case, demonstrating the project’s readiness to move forward into product development, is in hand.

Over and over:

> there's no serious funding in the budget for immediately building a heavy lift vehicle. And that could easily be done by building a shuttle derived Jupiter core rocket.

> There is no logic to cancelling HSF at NASA and spreading the already thin funds to the four winds of commerical that has not demonstrated anything yet!

> That means you build spacecraft and you get in the spacecraft and you go somewhere. We need to just do it!

> The only reason for NASA program delays and failures is lack of funding.

Your fantasies cost too much. And NASA is not more capable than industry. The same delusions about Cost and Capability over and over.

Try http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html for a history lesson

I stand corrected. I will agree that some programs may go over-budget based on those numbers, although I'd love to see how they came up with them. Afterall, unless they are basing their numbers on an originally agreed upon budget (when the program was conceived) and not the current year's budget (which would probably be a much reduced number that wasn't enough to sustain the program), it's not very accurate.

I do believe that in the space industry, it is impossible to budget exactly how much it's going to cost to complete a project. And if you tell me that the "private sector" is capable of making an exact estimate on how much it will cost them to develop and build a manned space vehicle, something they have NEVER done before, you're obviously not too bright. There is no way these companies can predict how much they'll have to spend to succeed because they really don't know what they are up against. And just because they are competing with one another doesn't suddenly make it cheaper to do.

I think those of us who are supporting Constellation, or at least, a NASA led space program, are not necessarily against private commercialization of space. I'm all for it. If they want to do it on their own, then that's what they should do. On their own.

Ferris.Valyn stated: "The point is not about creating YET ANOTHER government program that is merely welfare for engineers".

Excuse me? What do you call our goverment giving all these contracts to these "private sector" companies???? THAT is turning NASA into a government welfare program. In the past, when a program is presented by a president and NASA administrator it is bid upon by many commercial companies. One of them is selected and a contract is put in place. Then other commercial companies around the nation are contracted out for all the various tasks necessary to complete the program. The new planned NASA will start giving out money to various small companies in the private sector as "play money" to see what they can come with. Some may fail, but that's okay. A couple might actually produce something. And our government has helped a little company succeed. How nice. I call that the welfare situation. Well, forgive me if I prefer the old NASA and want my tax-dollars to go into something more worthwhile than a small business's own R&D.

Do you think they will actually succeed in the time they have before their budget gets cut?

Again, it's not that I don't want the commercial sector to succeed. I really do. Though it won't benefit myself much (sorry, but unless I sell my house and everything I own and use my children's college funds, I'll never be one of those lucky people to tour space). My problem with the whole scenario is they want to dismantle NASA and use that money to pay for it. That's unacceptable to me. I love NASA... the NASA that put astronauts on the moon and built the space station. Have you been to see a shuttle launch? It's breath-taking. It doesn't get any cooler than all that. I live close to JSC and manned space flight was the inspiration for my career path. Just thinking about our astronaut office being gutted makes me cringe. Why am I not inspired by this new path Obama is taking us on? Because unlike those other endeavours, research and development doesn't inspire me. NASA was created to do BIG things. Constellation was the next BIG program, the one that would be added to my "now that's cool" list. Our president didn't even try to make it happen. They just wrote it off in their budget for a whole new tactic that may or may not succeed.

I'd prefer to live vicariously through astronauts stationed on the moon than watching millionaire's tour space.

All just one lowly aerospace engineer's opinion.

CessnaDriver

The innovation was in the utilization. The innovation was in how the funding was done.

I strongly suggest you either read Selling Peace, or at least watch this video. Learn about things like Constoga I, External Tanks Incorporated, Space Industries, and Payload Systems Inc. NASA killed a number of commercial space ventures. They actively fought for those companies to go out of business. Look at how much they fought against letting Dennis Tito onto the Space Station (a tactic that still hasn't really gone away).

Look at the situation with IntelSat, and PanAmSat - there are so many parallels to what was going on during that time frame, and what is going on right now, with regards to human spaceflight.

As for going beyond LEO & the Russians - I am all for NASA working on Beyond LEO stuff. But to do that, they should be working on crafts that are true deep space crafts IE that don't land on planets. Spacecrafts that only travel in deep space. Rather interesting, NASA is working on the hardware to do just that.

The problem with "splitting the difference" is that we don't have unlimited funds. If we did, then I might not have a problem. But we don't, and we have to face that fact.

And BTW, as long as we are discussing what NASA can & can't do, it would appear that NASA is totally incapable of developing a manned program that is sustainable, since it utterly FAILED to do that with Constellation. It utterly FAILED to develop a program that encourages commercial growth (see again Constellation). And there was no way that it could get back to the moon on the required timeframe. In otherwords, NASA failed to follow what it was suppose to do on VSE with Constellation

So, let me get this straight - you want to spend a s***load of money, some of which is mine, on a moon mission, because "NASA's is suppose to do BIG things?"

Please, get over yourself, and help NASA get over itself. Money is tight right now, and for NASA to get funding, it has to do something that is relevant, not at Cocoa beach, but in Peoria, and Buffalo. If we are going to spend $8 B on a year on inspiration, then a large chunk of that should also be going to the NEA.

We aren't dismantling NASA. NASA doesn't have vehicles and the like to dismantle. It's already been dismantled, thanks to the likes of Mike Griffin.

Instead, We are putting the Commercial Space on the critical path. I know that is scary. But, a number of years ago, we put the Russians on the critical path, and it was hardly the death blow to US human spaceflight.

> I do believe that in the space industry, it is impossible to budget exactly how much it's going to cost to complete a project. And if you tell me that the "private sector" is capable of making an exact estimate on how much it will cost them to develop and build a manned space vehicle, something they have NEVER done before, you're obviously not too bright.

This is precisely why it's important to transition from cost-plus companies with a single prime contractor to fixed-price milestone-based contracts with multiple competitors. After the first few milestones it becomes increasingly obvious whether or not the bids are realistic, in which case the company has to either eat the additional cost or risk losing its business to its competitors.

It's also worth noting that the Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 were all developed for a total cost almost an order of magnitude less than that of the Ares I, despite having similar capabilities.

Why do you think that NASA has been preventing commercial space endeavours? That video you linked in an earlier comment was ridiculous. You keep pointing out examples of failed commercial programs/companies which you blame NASA for. I think you are very off base with these accusations. They failed because they couldn't compete. It happens in the business world. NASA takes the bid of the company that can do a particular program the best. Everyone has a fair chance. And in fact, when you consider the hundreds of other SMALLER companies that also get contracts on the same program, NASA is actually supporting quite a lot of the private sector. If you have a smaller company out there that can't compete with say, Lockheed Martin, or even one of the smaller companies, then that company should find a private investor who will give them their chance. That's how the business market works.

You said, "The point is, once commercial human spaceflight is established, there will be new sources of revenue, that don't necessarily depend on government sources. For example, private R&D on ISS, or on a Bigelow Station. Or a private astronaut (IE space tourist). Or a university researcher, not affiliated with NASA. Or a researcher from another country, working on a project."

Why does NASA need to invest in the commercial industry for these things to happen??? Yes, there may be a need to make some regulation changes, such as allowing "private R&D on ISS", though even that would still need to be overseen by NASA. Afterall, you wouldn't want an incapable company to screw up the space station. There is no reason that the kinds of commercial space endeavours you mentioned can't be done. And it's certainly a worthwhile aspiration to have. BUT, I don't see how NASA handing over its budget to the commercial sector changes anything. Why should NASA suddenly be a big investment company for the small business entrepreneur?

You asked three interesting questions... Well, maybe two. One seemed quite obvious to me. Let's start with that one...

1) Exactly WHAT is exploration? Define it so that it has relevance to the average person:

Surely you can see the benefits that came from man's exploration of our own planet - where would we be without those who explored our world so long ago? Perhaps sitting around thinking the world is still flat. It's in our nature to explore the world - and the space - that's around us.

2) Why can't it be about monetary profit?
It can be. But it shouldn't come from NASA. Again, and you said it yourself, we don't need another government welfare program.

3) I don't actually agree that human spaceflight produces a lot of usable science.

It takes years for scientific results to be turned into products, medicines or materials that the everyday person may interface with. A lot of the science being done is to determine how chemical reactions, animals, and plants behave in zero gravity. This type of knowledge is captured and forms a body of experience that will be required to really move out into the cosmos in long duration missions. And in fact, there have been many everyday products (heard of Velcro), that came from putting humans into space. Try looking up benefits of space exploration on the internet. You'd be amazed at what all we have thanks to the work of NASA.

Of course, science aside, I think each of us has our own answers for why we should have human space exploration. Not everyone thinks it's worth it. I guess maybe too many of us grew up in the days of Star Trek and Star Wars and dream of someday exploring other galaxies. Perhaps that's why you are fighting so much against NASA and the dream of exploration because you are only thinking of the monetary benefits of space tourism. Oh, but wait. I guess there's your big goal for HSF.

For your information Constellation money is helping companies and communities all across america. I happen to know that Orion contractors are working out of Buffalo, NY, Tuscon AZ, Pamona CA, Hartford CT as well as towns in Illinois, Colorado and even work out of University of Dayton, Ohio. Even the company’s who are being crowned the so-called commercial companies are already on contract for parts of Orion – Sierra Nevada and Paragon. There seems to be a stigma that Orion is being built inside NASA by civil servants – it isn’t. It’s being built by America.

No, they weren’t the death blow, but they nearly killed ISS. The US (out of NASA’s budget) paid Russia for their modules, as well as ours. Forced into a partnership by the president, NASA saw its costs sky rocket as teams of people had to live in Russia and Italy and Germany. Required to maintain this partnership NASA had to pay these ‘partners’ for their work. We even launched some of their modules. No, putting the international partners in the critical path wasn’t a death blow, but the program survived because of the dedication of the NASA and contractor team to persevere.

If memory serves me correctly, the U.S. paid for the 1st Russian module, the Functional Cargo Black. The Service Module was paid for by the Russian and it was late getting to orbit, thus delaying the whole ISS.