Florida Does Not Like The New Space Policy

Sounds like Nelson's been talking to Bolden. If the current administration says we can't afford to go to the Moon then how can we afford to go to Mars? Returning to the Moon is a cakewalk compared to going to Mars.

There's no logical reason to send an elite few to Mars for some hyper expensive flag waving space adventure and then have them return home to say, well now that we've put a flag there-- that's the end of our Mars program-- just like we did on the Moon!

If we return to the Moon or go to Mars, we need to go there to stay!

And when these astronauts do return to Earth's vicinity from Mars, they should probably be quarantined at a Moon base or a space station for at least a year, IMO, to make sure that they didn't bring back some deadly organism from Mars that could potentially wipe us all out! I'm serious!

Marcel F. Williams

There's nothing really new here at all. Crist isn't interested in space exploration, just jobs and getting elected. Same with Kosmas. They don't care that Constellation was way behind schedule and over budget. They're not concerned about whether the program actually works, only that it generates jobs and pulls in money. There's a reason that all the noise about this is coming from politicians in states with affected NASA centers and contractors. The other 95% of Congress could care less.

Make no mistake... Bill Nelson is a politician and he aims to get reelected. However, he has a unique perspective and he does understand the real score. I expect he'll continue to be a sole voice of reason amongst the clatter from his fellow state representatives.

So much for saving or creating those jobs there!

Gov. Crist is wise to not say this is the end of manned flight (the rhetoric we've been hearing for two weeks by random commentators and certain people ignorant of NASAs future). His plea to keep Cx is mild at best.

Senator Nelson is clearly on the fence now, which is refreshing. The tide is turning and those who want to see Cx continue are going to be heartbroken.

Sorry guys, but Cx is dying and will be dead soon enough.

newpapyrus, Brent Sherwood on The Space Show (Feb 14th) outlines what the Flexible Path means. I should do a transcription of the best parts. Yes, it means going to Mars cheaper than Cx.

You're remodeling your bathroom, but your wife says you have a budget of $100 a month. Being a good husband you agree that this is fine, but you want to start right away. Let's assume fixed units here for comparison, OK? It's $100 to paint the bathroom (including tools, etc), $100 to tile the bathroom, and $100 to put in a new mirror and new sink fixtures.

If you were going about it the Cx way, you'd buy a pint of paint, paint one wall. Buy a quarter of a mirror, and tape it up, along with one knob for the fixture. And buy a quarter of the tiles, and install them. The next month you'd buy another pint of paint, paint another wall. Buy another quarter of a mirror, and tape it up, and another knob for the fixture. Then you'd buy another quarter of the tiles you need, and continue on your merry way for another two months, doing this same, stupid, asinine, behavior.

If you were doing flexible path, though, you'd buy one of the 3 options, and install them all on one day. So if your wife really likes getting dressed up in the morning, you might buy the mirror and fixture first, and then you get "benefits" from that. If she has really soft feet and the floor tiles are crummy, likewise, you might install the tiles first, because you want her feet to stay nice and soft. If it's a color she doesn't like, then, well, you are probably best off painting it first.

The key is that you have many options, and you're within budget, and you're not doing too many things at once. Cx was the first way of doing things, and it was destroying our space program. Only the government could manage a project the way Cx was being handled.

Regarding potential cross-planet contamination:

Mars and Earth have been exchanging meteorites for pretty much the entire history of the Solar System, and we have good reason to believe that extremophile-type organisms could probably survive the trip (they'd have to be practically that hardy just to survive on Mars at all). So, while I definitely support off-planet quarantine for returning Mars astronauts, just to be on the safe side a year might be a bit much, since if there are any killer bugs on Mars, they probably have already arrived here long ago.

Nelson seems pretty reasonable about it. I don't hear doom and gloom from him. He knows better.

I got to call BS on the anti-Constellation talking points. Constellation was not over budget. Bolden even admitted to that in a press conference. Underfunded is not equal to over budget.

Josh,

The problem with your analogy is that not a single human being, or group of human beings, has ever painted nor installed tiles in a bathroom on Mars. You cannot trivialize the task of going to Mars (just like you cannot trivialize going to the Moon) with such a simple analogy.

And:

The key is that you have many options, and you're within budget, and you're not doing too many things at once.

What is ironic about this statement is that, during Obama's first year, he most certainly was trying to do too many things as once (and not getting very many of them done), and he has not stayed within any sort of budget, in fact he has broken it!

I don't mean to be demeaning, but you are still a young engineer (or perhaps scientist?) at NASA. I realize that you are enthused by flexibile path, and enthusiasm in young people is a good thing, even if it is somewhat naive. But in all reality, you have very little professional experience to make a claim such as we will get to Mars cheaper than Constellation with flexible path.

As opposed to what? Ares/Orion? Are you kidding me?

"The new plan is essentially starting from scratch, which means a ten year manned space gap."

Yeah, I guess saying Constellation was over budget is too benign and simplistic. The truth is that NASA managers designed an architecture based on a budget they would never receive. Everything they planned was bigger, more expensive and required longer lead times than the original VSE approach envisioned. Stretching out milestones, slashing capability and compromising on standards while waiting for Congress to ride in on a white horse with additional funds is the NASA way and the Constellation team dutifully played their appointed roles.

@the Rat

I have to agree and take it one further and say it was technically not as far behind scehdule as Falcon 9 currently is. Their award was a contract if they could complete three Demo flights between 2008 and 2010. There are only 7 months left in 2010 and they have not launched one yet. As for those who will say "they are launching in 1-3 months" I say, like everybody who reported it, you didnt read the press release very well. They said they would launch within 1-3 months after assemply and integration was complete. So I would say that puts them in the vacinity of 3-6 months. Or very little room for margin to even slide one flight in when they should be done with 3. Is this a problem? No, obviously they will get an extension on that deadlline and they should.

Back to the point, the point was that the so called over budget and way behind schedule is hypothetical on paper according to some. Most of that is based on the fact that Obama took a big chunk out of explorations budget last year, when he flatlined its 5 year budget. And dont even get me started on the people who say "look he raised the budget!" first of all, the overall budget for NASA is up by $300 million, but $600 million of that is to extend Shuttle. If shuttle is done by september 30th, that money is never appropriated. 1.9 billion is for contractr closeouts. The exploration budget has been gutted.

@joshcryer - while I wont say I think the analogy above is great, I will run with it. So to complete the analogy lets get in to the difference between "Flexible Path" and the "Garver(oops I mean Obama-Bolden) Plan". First of all, there are a lot of supporters of flexible path. But both Moon First and Mars First have more supporters. The reason being, the vast majority of people working in human spaceflight view "flexible path" as passing the buck, or rather, this is the next administrations problem, not mine. So many of us have issues with that. We see it as a fancy way of saying the next OSP, X-34, X-33, name your vehicle here that was supposed to replace shuttle and didnt. An open door to kill any program for lack of results or lack of commitment from a new (or current admministration). Also, many think that the vast sums of money required to do a human flyby of an asteroid or Martian moon will not generate the excitement and pride people will feel with the vast sums of money spent on putting people on the moon or Mars or some other body. So while I do not hate, flexible path, it is probably my third option (after Moon First, then Mars first). The "new" plan, is no plan at all, it is an abomination.

The problem is, what was dumped on us on February 1st could not be called Flexible Path or any path. There were no goals, no substance, no anything. Just an endless littany of the words "bold", "game changing" and "paradigm shifting" with no details. Then in press conference and all hands after all hands after all hands, no new details were forthcoming. Except that it was "bold" and "exciting".

Many here at JSC could have accepted changes to Constellation with disappointment, but as long as we kept our eye on the target (the moon or even mars), with Orion as our crew vehicle for exploration (only) and some derivative of heavy launch vehicle, we would be much happier than we are. We expected Obama would change the program of record, but many expected some changes. Instead, everything was taken from us and replaced with nothing. I personally knew a long time ago that Constellation and all of its elements would be completely killed. The writing was on the wall during the campaign and after in the infamous Garver-Griffin Altercation of 2008.

Now, next point, although people who post here think they are in the majority, they are actually the loud and vocal minority. I have not spoken to a single person in Constellation, Orion, Ares, even for Shuttle or ISS, on site at JSC, off site at JSC, on site at KSC, at GRC, or anywhere who agrees with the new plan or thinks it is a good plan. Most people still think the whole thing is a bad joke nestled in a worse nightmare. However, most of the people I know who work around here do not post on NASA watch, because they dont want to take the time and get very frustrated and angry by all the comments from people who are very vocal and dont work in any of these programs. So the vocal minority can continue with its attacks and jabs and jokes about 10s of thousands of engineers and technicians losing their jobs, but you should know that you are in fact the vocal minority. The lack of any real details or substance or knowledge of anything pertaining to the program or its elements in the rumors and speculation based on gossip perpetuated by HSF haters or even just Constellation haters or Ares hater is obvious. The constant misrepresentation of the Augustine Report is laughable. I however find it very hard to read these comments and remain silent.

So back to your analogy. Now to complete it you must say oh and by the way dear, we are not sure if we are going to use an actual mirror, a mirror mosaic, reflective paint or possibly a paradigm shifting liquid mercury mirror! We are going to be flexible with that. The floor on the other hand, we may want to use synthetic tile, or real tile, or linoleum, but you know what? Tiles are technology that is thousands of years old. We are going to do some R&D to look into the potential for exciting and game changing technologies for floor covering. As for paint, well, paint again is "very old technology, surely somebody out there, and I dont know if it exists, but I'm hoping one of you can help me with that" (paraphrase from Bolden all hands) and tell me about a new innovative technology for coloring your walls, and it will be cheaper and it will dry faster and it will last forever! But first we have to do 10-30 years of some R&D to look into that game changing technology.

So you say to your wife, this is the way it is going to be, I am going to take that $100 a month you gave me to remodel the bathroom, and rather than buying tiles, a mirror, paint and a fixture, I am going to invest it in bathroom flooring, mirror and paint, technology innovation and R&D, for the next 30 years. Maybe sometime possibly, I'm not sure, but possibly maybe I am hopeful, by late 2020s we may have discovered how to do the paint! (again paraphrasig Bolden all hands) Than from there we can determine which mirror technology goes best with the new paint technology and maybe perhaps if we really want a floor.

In the meantime wifey, I am paying our neighbor $300 a month to use their toilet while our bathroom is gutted and we wait for game changing paradigm shifting technologies.

We do this because we dont have budget. Oh but also wifey dear, Joe's Tree Cutting Service is going bankrupt, so I am going to give them $3300 to save them. Oh yeah, I am also going to give $650000 to Bob's Ice Cream Store because they mismanaged their money too and now they will have to close their doors if we dont bail them out. See these things are more important than your bathroom, so we cant really afford to do the bathroom now, or your way, or using conventional, known, reliable technology. But dont worry wife, in 30 years, your new bathroom is going to blow your mind! Well, that is if you are still alive honey.

There, I think that completes your analogy.

So, the masses here at the centers have gone from one all hands meeting or press conference with Bolden to another. Hoping to finally get some answers, anything concrete or even reasons why this is being done. Wondering if "...did anybody fight for us?" That question and none of the others have been answered at all by Bolden or Garver or anybody else. Until we are giving some answers and a plan a goal and a purpose, the masses at the centers will remain very unhappy and very disgruntled.

"Constellation was not over budget."

It was however over budgeted.

I can say first hand living in Florida people are scared from the governor down to the laborer.

That of course assumes that a martian organism could survive the asteroid impact that hit Mars and blasted rock fragments into space, then survive for thousands, millions, or even billions of years traveling in space before they hit the Earth, and then survived the fiery entry through the Earth's atmosphere.

Marcel F. Williams

I'm not sure what the Flexible Path means since there are no Flexible Path vehicles being developed under the new Obama budget.

For those of you who are interested in reading a classic book on rocket science, you should download the free e-book:

LEO on the Cheap:Methods for Achieving Drastic Reductions In Space Launch Costs

by Lt. Col. John R. London III

http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm

Its a fascinating read especially when it comes to the cost reduction methods utilized in the Russian space program.

Marcel F. Williams

If Constellation/VSE was Apollo on Steroids, is Flexible path VSE with ADHD?

Well, to many this 'flexible path' comes across as spending $20B/yr without really comitting to deadlines or much in terms of deliverables. That way, of course, it becomes nearly impossible to have overruns and managers get to keep their jobs. HSF opponents somehow believe that $20B/yr is now theirs and forever so long they wave the 'science' flag every so often, but they are mistaken.

I have serious doubts such funding would continue for long at the current level. After all, the general public has limited patience in terms of how many photos of red dunes on Mars it is willing to pay for and, also, eventually will realize that all the talk about 'monitoring climate' is not necessarily the same thing as doing something about it as slip into the next ice age. The European Space Agency has an excellent space program for just $4B/yr, and that'd be more than enough to prepare pretty (and shallow) TV documentaries for television and schools.

Don't get me wrong, we do need science, but that alone is not enough. We just have too many NASA centers, too many non-STEM civil servants, and too many on-going R&D projects ... that's where the real cost overruns have been for decades. Don't blame CxP. The Moon was seen as the 'easiest' (yes, easiest) target for an initial set of missions to flush out the new system while remaining at a relatively safe distance from Earth. Going straight to NEOs had risks because the reliability needs time to buildup and if something goes wrong there's no way to get people back if they're 6 months away chasing an asteroid.

So, let's not kid ourselves. It's unlikely Dragon/Falcon will deliver much before a critical number of ISS modules reach their design life, so the entire business plan for commercial HSF falls once there is not a space station to go to. Thus, someone needs to come back and explain to us what happens come 2020 ... are we expected to pay up for what amounts to a new space station (either replacing/deorbiting older modules or an entirely new one) just to keep commercial HSF in business? Would that be worth another $100B investment between 2020 and 2030 investment in lieu of CxP?

My view is it's not, and that's why the so-called flexible path is anything but flexible. We're being painted into a corner where come 2020 the only way ahead is to build another ISS with limited science value.

Spaceboy, I do believe you just pwned joshcryer.

It won't just be Florida that hates this so called "plan".

A few fellows that you may have heard of want a moment of your time.........

February 15, 2010
Dear Mr. & Mrs. America:

There has never been, and likely never will be, another government program that expedites technological innovation so much as the U.S. space program. There is not another program that has so successfully rallied a nation, inspired youngsters toward academic achievement or established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.

The manned space program has, in particular, been a source of our nation’s strength and character. But an Achilles heel in the form of our country’s executive branch threatens a mortal wound. Under the Obama 2011 budget, the U.S. will no longer ferry humans into space— no moon, no Mars. The source of much of America’s inspiration and spirit, the impetus for so much discovery, technology and imagination, is in jeopardy. The demise of America’s space program is just another step in the dismantling of our nation.

Where's the vision put so eloquently in 1962 when President Kennedy said," serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." President Kennedy delivered a vision to the American public that demanded courage, imagination and follow-through. The long-term focus has always been to progressively conquer new frontiers. Certainly, that focus has been shared by both government and private enterprise but to withdraw government from manned space flight will surely obliterate those far-reaching frontiers and precipitously lower our nation’s preeminence in technology.

We are the only country to ever conquer the high ground, the moon. And now we are to give that up to the Russians and Chinese who are committed to having a permanent presence there? The national security implications are starkly real. From the high ground, foreign governments will have greater access to monitor U.S. technology assets in Earth orbit. Whoever controls the high ground becomes the world’s leader in technology.

We ask you to join those members of Congress who have the fortitude and courage to embrace the vision that has become part of our nation’s signature and who are advocates of returning to the moon and maintaining America’s leadership role in the exploration of space.

Respectfully,

Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Astronauts

- Scott Carpenter

- Gene Cernan

- Charlie Duke

The Real Space Cowboys

Creator Ed Buckbee

"I have not spoken to a single person in Constellation, Orion, Ares, even for Shuttle or ISS, on site at JSC, off site at JSC, on site at KSC, at GRC, or anywhere who agrees with the new plan or thinks it is a good plan."

Talk to someone not in the HSF arena like GSFC, JPL, ARC, GRC, LARC and KSC ELV and you will get an unbiased opinion.

The Rat wrote: "I got to call BS on the anti-Constellation talking points. Constellation was not over budget. Bolden even admitted to that [...]"

Well, Bolden also admitted "that is always the case", and he admitted that to work within budget the schedule had been slipped to an unreasonable extent. While budget profiles were not under the control of constellation, fairly clearly the program was not over-performing.

As I read and listen to all the commentary that has followed the release of the new plan for NASA and Human Space Flight (HSF), it is worth noting that many of the perspectives are not even on the same planet as far as the view of what happened in recent years. To make matters worse, broad and differing goals seem to be tossed around as if a few words leave all the rest clear. The Moon vs. capability? An ill-defined statement about destinations as if no more was required vs. a set of “ilities” that are left just as poorly explored.

To defenders of Constellation (Cx), at what cost, in what time frame, in what context and with what goals would you declare the program a success? Cost considerations would include not just “getting there” but also the yearly recurring costs for some number of years for how many missions a year. The time frame would be what happens by when at multiple points, Cx being a dual-launch-vehicle architecture. The context would include asking if the program costs and timeframe also include the money for all the other things NASA should do, or is Constellation the end-all be-all of NASA Human Space Flight? And lastly goals are more than just getting back to the Moon; goals include the benefits to US industry, running with any advancements in technology that are deemed of other use for their own application.

The reason we are here today – one more canceled initiative, déjà-vu all over again – is largely due to Cx being unable to answer these questions with anything more than saying send money and trust me, alongside no broader goals other than a destination, as if Constellation were entirely defendable existing in a vacuum, never addressing any bigger picture. In the ideal world of Cx, the program would have gotten all the money they needed always, for any arbitrary date, or immediately more if the date ran into problems. Also, in this ideal Cx world, if there were other NASA goals (in Science, Aeronautics, Space Systems R&D, our outpost / ISS in space, or for initiatives for low cost access to space, etc), that would not affect Constellation funding. These “other” things would all be un-affected, off in their own world, getting their funding too! Ahh, to live in such a world…

The community of readers and contributors here would do well to go back and see the numbers from the Cx program itself alongside such context. It is impossible to separate a program from the agency it is a part of. Constellation began as a $100 Billion dollar program to “get there” – $100 B by 2020 to have up and running two launch vehicles, a spacecraft (Orion), and a Lunar Lander (Altair). In its early estimates, harking back to the “ESAS” work, the first vehicle, Orion Ares I, would have been able to provide services to the ISS by 2012 or at the latest 2013. General Space Systems R&D was cut early in the program as a way to send funds to Cx but plenty of money was to be left over to the tune of $500M a year, for other uses. Science and Aeronautics, even in early plans, were to be cut to make way for the Cx priority. This is well documented in the 2004 Aldridge report. In other words, Cx was to be a fundamental shift in NASA away from Science, Aeronautics, the ISS, and Space Systems R&D – even from the beginning. ESAS built on the Aldridge funding profile nearly exactly at the gross level of Cx vs. everything else.

As it turns out, even when pretty much these 2005 plan amounts were received at the NASA top-line year after year, Cx invariably adopted a continuous mantra of “we want more” – more money, more time, and more performance. Whatever existed at one time in talking about Cx being “sustainable” as related to “affordability” in a more absolute sense became discussions about “support” deriving from stakeholders, relative to supporting year after year funding.

Most importantly, even when Cx was to be up and running it’s own estimates show it would have been a program the yearly operation of which would have approached the entire current Human Space Flight budget. Compare that to the Shuttle using up about 1/3rd of the current budget, allowing for the simultaneous operation of a Space Station, a major development program, Cx itself, and other R&D. NASA Human Space Flight would have been all dressed up with no where to go. After all, where would the Lunar assets or any payload funding be in all this? Invariably the Cx answer would be “well, we’ll need (or assume) more money tomorrow”. Cx had become a program that never had an end in site, for all its defenders stating the focus provided by dates and destinations. The dates and destinations were focused on while everything else was left as form as jello. It was always just “give me more money”. In comparison to Apollo, adjusting for inflation, Cx was heading to re-create about the same yearly cost for the same yearly couple of flights to the Moon, while trending above Apollo yearly costs as Cx added ever more expansive capabilities (Lander size, duration, and landing sites).

In the end Cx defenders started the “goals worthy of a great nation” defense. That sounded a lot better than the real words - “just give me any money I need whenever I need it, and as for everyone else in the agency they are not my problem. If you want to fund other neat stuff, that’s fine, so long as it does not affect me”. Focus had become myopia.

Now it’s fine to reduce this down to more money, and faith in grand well defined goals, but Cx defenders should simply say so. Yes, money independent of other programs. Additionally, they might have added in “but not if it means other initiatives are decimated”. This wasn’t going to happen. It too is an ideal honesty, but myopia assures a program does not worry about the bigger picture.

Ultimately the question that lies ahead is what business do we have re-instating a program that is destination driven, using mostly existing technology, the use of which does nothing new for any other business entity as far as what they might run with to broaden and grow the market of access to space? No advancement in yearly costs, yearly flight rates, reliability or in general making access to Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) routine makes anything beyond LEO simply un-sustainable by definition.

The challenge to the new R&D driven programs is to realize it’s all about costs, up-front, and especially recurring, within a broad context that admits the limits of the Federal budget. Once again, just as Cx could not live apart, un-affected and not affecting other parts of NASA, NASA can not live as if it exists in isolation from the Federal budget environment. As a Nation our demographics are aging. We are in the throes of deciding how our tribe moves forward, with our sick and elderly, together, or leaving them behind to the wolves. Additionally, as a Nation we have accumulated debt for decades, all of which is reaching a turn on the curve as yearly interest on the debt starts to crank upwards. In a sense both are problems we have more often than not ignored - as far away, as abstract, as not my problem. Now they can be ignored no further. These fiscal pressures are realities for which data exists. They can not be simply waved away, addressed quickly, or solved by the quaint phrases used when appealing to some ideology.

It’s time to figure out low-cost, routine, significantly more reliable (and by relation safer) access to low-Earth-orbit, or all else fails. Accepting the limited amounts of money in NASA HSF turns then to the more productive discussion of how best to leverage these limited funds, akin to investments, in growing the overall health, growth and maturity of the aerospace economy. The aerospace industry has major problems – a small industrial base, limited volumes of production, related low learning rate and low technology maturity, all adding up to 2 to 3 sigma launchers that are special events in a 6-sigma world that wants routine. On a positive note, it’s also an industry with a positive US trade balance, where the launch of space systems has created a wealth of related service industries (TV, radio, GPS, imaging, etc) that arguably make for a more sustainable future.

So let’s turn this discussion to a fiscal reality – the mandatory spending in the Federal budget in the foreseeable future will apply pressure to all discretionary spending as far as the eye can see. Accept this, and then move on. What is the best thing NASA can do with a few billion a year while the Shuttle flies, or with maybe $5B a year once the Shuttle is retired, so as to further access to space, humans or cargo, becoming more affordable, accessible (meaning more people or companies products getting to space), and routine (meaning safer)?

Well, the first step of that has been proven- see Horneck et al's "Microbial Rock Inhabitants Survive Hypervelocity Impacts on Mars-Like Host Planets: First Phase of Lithopanspermia Experimentally Tested" (2008).

Again, I do think a quarantine period is necessary, but the cross-contamination risk isn't as high as one might suppose.

"I have not spoken to a single person in Constellation, Orion, Ares, even for Shuttle or ISS, on site at JSC, off site at JSC, on site at KSC, at GRC, or anywhere who agrees with the new plan or thinks it is a good plan."

Well I, for one, work at JSC. And yes, I do believe that ultimately, this plan is a good one. However, the timing is a bit off in my opinion. I think NASA should be focusing on exploration (i.e., not LEO). But I don't think the civilian space industry is at a point where we can turn over, say, ISS-type operations to them. When's the last time a non-governmental entity put a person in orbit? Sure, they're on the right path and will ultimately get to a point where they can realistically take over LEO reliably....just not now. FWIW,
-Tech Boi

EXCELLENT !!
RIGHT ON THE MARK !!!

If we started on a small low cost capsule in 2004 it would be flying on Atlas 401 today.

Looking at NASA's plans to replace the shuttle over the last decade from SLI to X33 to OSP it's almost as if NASA doesn't even want a manned space flight capability.

> Looking at NASA's plans to replace the shuttle over the last decade from SLI to X33 to OSP it's almost as if NASA doesn't even want a manned space flight capability.

Well, I think that is a little unfair. For example, the X-33 was trying to pioneer several new technologies simultaneously, and less than $1 billion had been spent before the program was cancelled.

By contrast, Constellation uses virtually no new technologies and some $9 billion has already been spent on it.

> If we started on a small low cost capsule in 2004 it would be flying on Atlas 401 today.

That is an important point. The Constellation supporters constantly disparage the suggestion that anyone other than them can put a human into orbit sooner or cheaper. But the Ares I and Orion were designed for a bigger mission - take a bigger payload into space, remain there much longer, and return into the atmosphere at beyond LEO velocities.

The mission the commercial operators are designing to are much less exotic. Lower the requirements, and then it isn't surprising that someone can meet them quicker and cheaper.

Outstanding post. Well said.

Ray, I'm an American citizen with aspirations for Mars, not a scientist or engineer. But I have been observing what is going on and I have not been a fan of Cx for years. What's interesting about your statement is comparing NASA to Obama. NASA is being run by Bolden, not Obama. I think in many cases this is more about bashing Obama's plan, when in fact the plan more resembles what Bush's VSE was supposed to be. Griffin gutted it and turned it in to ESAS. And now we have the greatest ironies in the history of modern politics, conservatives and libertarians arguing to keep a government spending program and bashing private space! It's delicious.

Spaceboy, one can view flexible path as "passing the buck," but a more realistic interpretation is "making NASA robust." That is, flexible path survives administration changes. Also, while many people might be "underwhelmed" with orbiting an NEO or Mars or even the moon, that's just a matter of perspective. Compared to 1) no human flights on a NASA ship for 7 years and 2) no manned flight beyond LEO for at least 15 years, with at least a 10 year gap of no human flight at all in space, it becomes far more interesting. "Humans are on their way to Sedna" sounds a lot better than "humans are waiting to build the stuff to land on the moon." It is then not what you personally think, but how it is sold to the public. Granted, manned flight to the ISS is being completely overlooked here. People simply don't recognize that 12 people are currently orbiting overhead. That has to change, because that *is* manned flight. That *is* cutting edge stuff.

Now, you are criticizing a plan you haven't even seen. All you've seen is that Cx was canceled, and have heard that time lines are going to be shortened (we'll get back to ISS long before Ares I was going to do it; ie, before ISS was going to be scuttled).

And, of course, you admit this, you admit that you haven't seen a plan, but you go a bit further and imply that one is not forthcoming, and are basing your whole critique on that.

I know that if I were working on a program that continually slipped its schedule, and hurt other aspects of the group I was part of, I would not be happy about it. But that's just me.

It does not surprise me that the people around you are for keeping the debacle that is Cx. I don't blame you. Brent Sherwood doesn't blame you. Bolden doesn't blame you. But you're going to have to get over it and not give up on the space program because it wants to get back to NASAs roots, and get us beyond LEO in a time frame shorter than Cx was promising.

As far as the remodeling analogy works, I think you're off base. The wife determines the budget. The budget determines what you can buy. So you can't magically buy a "shifting liquid mercury mirror" because your budget doesn't allow it. Now, of course, you are in a Cx mindset, you think that budgets don't matter, that you can steal from your wifes purse, or from your neighbor next door. But budgets do matter. For a robust space program you must fit within that budget.

Also, your extension of the analogy makes little sense. Because we are replacing parts at a time, we are able to continue using the bathroom. However, if you have half a project that has no complete parts to it throughout the whole project, it would be difficult to use the bathroom (quarter of a mirror? no knob on the fixture?). Indeed, your "extension" of the analogy is in fact *exactly* what Cx is doing, by wanting to scuttle the ISS before Ares I even flew, by gutting the rest of science and exploration so that it could continue funding itself. It appears you saw the logical conclusion of what I was suggesting, but you have really messed up trying to twist it back on me.

newpapyrus, you haven't seen a plan, so you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone is making assumptions based on a very minimalist budget outline.

Lowly Contractor, with a robust COTS program it doesn't matter if ISS modules overrun their design life, because commercial space can replace all of them (Kibo is the only module on the ISS that I do not believe could be lifted by our current heavy lift options; note I realize that our commercial heavy lift options have yet to be built, but they're closer to being built than anything in Cx).

CessnaDriver, Scott Carpenter is a personal hero of mine, and this is the first time that I have had someone I really admire go against the new direction. Thanks for posting that.

It is unfortunate, though, that they have bought the "no manned flight" propaganda given that Ares I wasn't flying for 7 years. Why people keep spouting this outright lie is beyond me. It wasn't the "Obama budget" that did this. It was explicitly the fault of Cx.

That NASA Engineer@KSC, thanks for that post. It's quite informative.

Amen!

Colorado is not happy either...

Four Colorado Congress members ask Obama to save NASA’s Constellation/Orion program

http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/02/15/daily55.html

Members of Congress are sending another letter urging the Obama administration to continue funding for the Constellation space-exploration program, which means billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs for Jefferson County-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems.

This time, the letter is from four members of Colorado’s congressional delegation and is addressed directly to President Barack Obama.

The letter to Obama, sent Thursday, says the Congress members “are concerned with changes in the direction of [NASA] in your administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget. In particular we support continued funding for Constellation, the next generation in human spaceflight as the shuttle program is retired this year. Our nation — and Colorado in particular — has much at stake in deciding the future of our space program.”

The letter is signed by U.S. Reps. Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden; Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs; Betsy Markey, D-Fort Collins; and Mike Coffman, R-Aurora.

It is thought that the late planetary bombardment was the principle cross contamination/seeding phase. In other words a LONG time ago.
More recent impacts bringing Martian surface materials and ancient micro-fossils back to Earth are unlikely to bear life.
Furthermore if life has survived on Mars it will probably be deep underground, associated with thermal/chemical sources of energy. Exploration of the "Caves of Mars" may well provide a biohazard. But that is a long time into the future. So far into the future that a base on Phobos could double as a Teleops centre and human guinea pig facility! Also the Moon will be heaving with tourists and a Lunar Receiving Laboratory too much of a Health Risk! As for any fast tracked Mars sample return I would suggest a dedicated LEO station. We could do our GM experiments there too!

@joshcryer

'Cx is dying and will be dead soon enough.'

And manned LEO and BEO spaceflight in the US along with it. Congratulations!

@Spaceboy

'the infamous Garver-Griffin Altercation of 2008'

Yes, rather prescient, now that you mention it. Seems like Garver's really running the Agency. Of course, an Admin with a degee in PR would be looked on unfavourably, so they roped in Bolden as public face.

'There, I think that completes your analogy.'

ROFL!

@Lowly Contractor

'spending $20B/yr without really comitting to deadlines or much in terms of deliverables. That way, of course, it becomes nearly impossible to have overruns'

A manager's paradise: no schedule -> no missed targets!

'We're being painted into a corner where come 2020 the only way ahead is to build another ISS with limited science value.

Alas, I doubt the program would get even that much. ISS doesn't have a lot of concrete accomplishments to point to, and with the price-tag of a replacement, the cost/benefit ratio would be obviously too low.

@joshcryer

Once again beautifully making my point:

"Ray, I'm an American citizen with aspirations for Mars, not a scientist or engineer. But I have been observing what is going on and I have not been a fan of Cx for years. "

You are not a scientist, you are not an engineer. You do not work in human space flight, you do not work for Constellation, Orion, Ares, Altair, ISS, or SSP. So all of your opinions are forumlated by what you read in stories that are usually so far from accurate as to be laughable. In short, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am very glad you are a space enthusiast, that is great, we need more. But dont tell people who are working the program that you know more about the programs than them because you read some articles online. It is naive and worse it is insulting.

Yes you are right, we are angry and criticizing the lack of a plan because we have not seen a plan. They have had a year to formulate some sort of plan, what have they been waiting for? It is clear to everyone in the industry that this decision was made well before Augustine commission even existed. Especially considering it pretty much ignored everything Augustine report said, with the exception of invest in commercial LEO crew vehicles, which was taken to the extreme at the expense of everything else. Also, people ignore the fact that the members of Augustine were not even close to complete agreement. There were members who had major issues with the lack of emphasis placed on safety. There are also issues with the Augustine report itself. And again with the basing everything on minimal budget outline. If you knew anything, you would know this has never happened before because usually NASA gets its passback from the OMB around Thanksgiving. This time they got their passback Saturday evening, less than 48 hours before the budget was revealed. That is why there is no meat to the budget because NOBODY in NASA saw the budget before Monday, so how could NASA flesh out the plan. Which brings up another point, this passback on a saturday before the announcement was PURELY an administration decision to hide what they were doing. No one at NASA, not even Charlie Bolden had any control over that.

But you clearly are basing everything you take as FACT from the Augustine Report and various articles. Well there is not a single person working in space flight who ever thought ISS was ending 2016, so that is one of the biggest falacies with the announcements, the press conferences and Garver's constant jabs at - "they would be ready to fly, when ISS fell out of the sky".

Almost everything you say above is just completely wrong. For the record, we heard Bolden was shocked when he first saw the budget and he was clearly choked up during the first press conference because he was probably choking on bile. He has since recovered and has to defend his boss, but it is clear to everyone that Charlie Bolden had little to no input into this plan. And yes, I will continue to have issues with its lack of details because they just wasted a year of my life and counting until they formulate some sort of plan.

And for the record, the liquid mercury mirror was intentional because nothing is in the current budget to develop anything that is "game-changing" like a liquid mercury mirror and it doesnt exist. The budget continues to be paltry and useless and wishing for some magical answer that is going to change the game. But this magical answer is not going to happen.

Your constant "but they are closer than Cx" is pure fiction. The only group that is possibly closer is Lockheed Martin with Orion and their expendable, i.e. between the two they have a huge head start on everybody in terms of crew vehicle design and a LONG successful launch history. But it isnt going to be a lot cheaper. The only other company that can claim the launch history is Boeing and the co-owned ULA. So, if they can compete it, why bother cancelling Orion to begin with for example. Your constant chorus of "this new plan will get us there faster and cheaper" is a complete and utter pipe dream. How can you say something that does not even exist yet in any form or concept at all, how can that possibly get us anywhere faster than things that are well under way. Especially when we dont know where "there" is, other than LEO! Guess what, commercial can have LEO if and when they ever develop the capability. We were aiming far beyond LEO.

They didnt just throw out the baby with the bath water, they they poured toxic waste in the bath tub and then tossed it over a cliff.

But again, I am really really glad that you, who are not a scientist or engineer are here posting constantly telling those of us who have worked these programs for years and did everything we could to be here because human spaceflight is in the core of our beings and have multiple science and engineering degrees that you know better than us and we are all stupid and need to get over it.

It is really frustrating that you have no idea what you are talking about but speak like "an authority" on everything and then you are rude to us in the process telling us to get over it and that you are positive this new plan is infinitely better when you readily admit there is no new plan.

BTW: Scott Carpenter is the first person you respect against the plan? So I guess Gene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon is a nobody? Not to mention all the other astronauts who have said this plan is awful. On your final note:

"It is unfortunate, though, that they have bought the "no manned flight" propaganda given that Ares I wasn't flying for 7 years. "

Did you ever consider for a second that you have thrown yourself 100% behind the commercial, new space, Obama propaganda that claims it will get "there" faster?

OK, I'm done. Good Night and Good Luck. Sorry, I hate getting angry on here, but some people are the cause of that anger. If anybody wants to see something really funny google klydemorris dot com and click on weekly strips. There was a great one this week (dated 2/15/10) that showed what looks like a very accurate representation of what went down. I would post the link, but I dont know if it is allowed.

@newpapyrus

'For those of you who are interested in reading a classic book on rocket science, you should download the free e-book:

LEO on the Cheap: Methods for Achieving Drastic Reductions In Space Launch Costs'

This is defintely good stuff; recommend it to all. A classic quote from it:
"design simplicity (and not increasingly elegant applications of advanced technology) was the key to lowering launch costs"

@Spaceboy

'It is really frustrating that you have no idea what you are talking about but speak like "an authority" on everything and then you are rude to us in the process telling us to get over it and that you are positive this new plan is infinitely better when you readily admit there is no new plan.'

Indeed.

Spaceboy, if you are working on Cx, my taxpayer money is paying for you to do your job. If you work on Cx you have not done the job as your peers told me it would be done. You are behind schedule, by no fault of my own, because I didn't elect the guy who decided to let you go on and build something but not fund it. As a citizen in a democratic country it is my duty to know as much as I can about those programs which my taxpayer money goes. From what I can see that program (Cx) was not robust in that it was incapable of surviving political turmoil (if Obama didn't cancel it there's still quite a good chance the next President will have). That its timelines were quite underwhelming. That it would have left us without manned space for at least a decade. That it would have ultimately destroyed private space. As an employee of the US government, if you disagree with these observations that I have made as a citizen, you are free to correct me. You cannot do that because you know what I am saying is true. All you can do is belittle me for not being paid by the government to get very little done and to crash two Orion modules into the ground over pathetically done deployment issues (as a parachutist I am intimately familiar with this technology).

When you criticize the Augustine Report, you fail to understand what it was saying. It wasn't saying that ISS would be scrubbed in 2016 it was saying "ISS would have to be scrubbed in 2016 if Cx was to meet this timeline" because ISS funding would have had to be diverted to Cx. And I should say, "everything" I say has little to do with the Augustine Report. I have been against Cx ever since it prioritized "legonomics" on the moon (ISS 2.0 on the moon, Mars mission pushed into the 2040s possibly 2050s). It is a very very bad way to go about exploring beyond LEO. Particularly, and most importantly, because the ESAS plans minimized ISRU.

According to Brent Sherwood Bolden went around and asked the NASA centers what they wanted. It is highly likely that Cx centers simply said "more of the same" (why would they want to change anything?). He asked those centers to outline new ways for NASA to move forward. If you do work for those centers and you weren't part of that process, then I feel for you. But it appears that the new direction was discussed for quite some time within NASA and everyone had a chance to give their input. So your characterization about Bolden not having input is a joke at best. Listen to Brent Sherwood on The Space Show (Feb 14th). It's clear that they've been going at it slow. What is unfortunate is that the preliminary budget didn't have a plan outlined. Bolden apologized for that. But we'll see it soon enough.

The way you characterized the mirror example, though, is not the way one budgets for some given thing. NASA will not be able to simply go after something that cannot fit their budget, they can't. So "game changing technologies" will have to be within the budget. This is clearly one reason NASA wants to internationalize exploration efforts (this, of course, triggers ones nationalist senses, and they then dismiss such endeavors outright).

ULA and SpaceX were and are closer than Ares I at getting manned flights in to space. If SpaceX can't do it with Dragon, Orion Lite is happy to sit on top of a Falcon 9. Really, you're deluding yourself if you think that Ares I was anywhere near close to getting people in to space. SpaceX completed 14 out of 22 COTS-A-C milestones. All that are demo flights and they get COTS-D.

Ares I, itself, was not capable of getting beyond LEO. Indeed, it was clear that Ares I was just an unnecessary step to build a manned taxi to LEO that was overbuilt. NASA is committed to building heavy lift. And most of this garbage you say about being against manned flight beyond LEO will prove to be just that, in less than a week. A lot of people will change their tune, but the hard line Cx'ers will probably stick to their guns and try to spin even harder than they are now.

Not being actually invested in Cx or NASA gives me unique insight in to what has been going on the past few years. I and others here could see that it was ISS 2.0 on the moon. That it was cargo ship development ala STS, all over again. That the US commercial space had more than enough capability to get us in to LEO. That NASAs science and research and technology was stagnating. That ISS was not going to get funded in another 5 or so years if Cx was ever going to get accomplished. Being someone who is "intimately familiar" with the process, you have you head stuck in the sand. You cannot see that it was a bad plan for America.

As far as your comments about Gene Cernan, they don't deserve response. What a joke.

"Did you ever consider for a second that you have thrown yourself 100% behind the commercial, new space, Obama propaganda that claims it will get "there" faster?"

No, I was against Cx before I was for the new direction. The timelines that Cx put forth were so underwhelming, that any new direction has to be better.

Perhaps we all need to step back and re-read "On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones." It's clear from the Cx implosion and aftermath that we're stuck in the same rut Pete Worden so aptly described. Perhaps it is time to start over.

But there are plenty of us who have and still do work Shuttle, ISS, Exploration, commercial programs, international programs, and even earlier programs who have known from the outset that Constellation was unsustainable, unaffordable, suffered from serious technical issues and with the corrupt and inexperienced Constellation management, would not get the job done.

So Constellation's cancellation was not a surprise and really couldn't come soon enough.

You and the group you claim to represent has failed to design or build the hardware after considerable expenditure's of time, money, and people. We were further away today than when you started, five years ago. If allowed to continue, you would have destroyed US HSF.

"Well there is not a single person working in space flight who ever thought ISS was ending 2016"

- but we remember the words of Griffin, who stated ISS was a mistake which NASA could not terminate it soon enough and we remember the actions of the Constellation management which did everything they could to try and commandeer the whole of HSF.

"but they are closer than Cx" is pure fiction."

-whether any of the commercial suppliers come through and in a timely manner, and many of us believe they will and can, cost effectiveness and efficiency calls for US industry to try; one thing we know for sure is how Constellation was not getting the job done in anything like a cost effective and efficient manner. And another thing we know for sure is how cost effectiveness and efficiency never had anything to do with how Shuttle and ISS have been managed, especially in the last 15 years when NASA operations became firmly entrenched in managing these programs.

Frankly, where do you get off speaking on behalf of anyone and insulting people. My guess is you must be one of those failed holier-than-thou Constellation managers. Its what we've come to expect of that gang.

After looking at this budget for weeks, I think I have finally focused on my frustrations with this budget, and I think it is time to change the diretion of the discussion a bit becuse, while I am a supporter of Constellation, I think it is true wht some of the "commercial" space folks are saying. The Marshall folks with Ares 1 were not focused appropriately to get that complete in a reasonable time.

I do give Ares credit that they did evalop and define the modifications necessary to fly a single solid (roll control, etc) and also modified the infrastructure (pad, crawler, etc) appropriately to get the Ares 1-X launch off. Where they seem to have failed, though is the upper stage. That seemed to be the pacing item and, while I am not an Ares 1 upper stage expert, I really didn't see the progress required to meet schedules. That my truly be due to the underfunding issue but that likely was struglling.

Therefore, I will admit that the "architecture" was struglling. Alternateively, however, it was likely the only architecture that would have supported the vision due to the fact that Delta IV heavy (the largest EELV in our industry) could still not lift a fully capable ISS and/or Lunar Orion CEV. Note that that is important in this disccussion as there is a significant difference between a CEV that can get to ISS on flight day 1 and return in one day after departure than a CEV that has orbital loiter capabilities, a CEV that can provide anytime return capability and a CEV that can do other missions in LEO.

Then I think we need to restructure the "commercial" argument. Until there is truly a passenger market, "commercial crew" is a misnomer. The ture market is in Launch Vehicle procurement, cargo carrier procurement and crew vehicle procurement. The market is governemnt buying products. It has nothing to do with some magical market where 100 millionares a year are going to purchace tickets to space. History has shown that we are not there. The commercial satellite market dried up (Iridium, etc) which dried up the commercial launch vehicle market. The dependence on people able to buy tickets to space is just a bad business plan. The only valid business plan is something that says, I can make money by showing the government I can do things more effectively than you are and therefore I can make money if you give me a government contract and you will bemore efficient.

Finally, I think that the commercial crew an commercial cargo lines are misdirected a bit. Package deals are tough. You typically don't see launch vehicle suppliers and satellite makers buiding packages of launch vehicle and satelites together. For one there are monopoly issues to deal with and it isn;t as efficient. It is also risker as once companies like SpaceX get involved in problems with their crew vehicle their launch vehicle production may suffer and if you are doing on the cheap that is risky.

The DoD realized the commercial marked in launch vehicles was not there and that is why they procured vehiclesform Atlas and Delta to ensure assured access to space. If they had let Atlas say try and survive in the commercial market it may have died and they would be dependent on only one launch vehicle, Delta. That is why the DoD now just has a budget line that says LV Procurement at X billion a year to ensure that the money will be there to keep the vehicles alive. The commercial market fallacy is also behind the combination of Boeing and LM to form ULA.

Therefore, I will agree that Constellation as we know it is likely dead. It is tough to defend the Ares development schedules. But I am hoping that the powers that be convert it into something that does have a goal and something that assures HSF to at least LEA in the near term. And i am hoping that the Garver politicing for "commercial" interests doesn't lead to a misguided direction. And NASA really needs to split crew vehicles and launch vehicles as a procurement line. That is even an issue here, I don't really think some of you know the defference between a launch vehicle and a crew vehicle.

So i think I have changed direction and will figt for this:

We still need a clear path to an assured crew vehicle capability. The farthest along in this area is Orion and it should continue with a clear evolution plan defined to get us to LEO, beyond LEO and elsewhere. That is the exploration goal.

NASA needs to split launch vehicles and crew vehicles and get a way from the contentious "commercial" description. there should just be a launch vehicle procurement line, a cargo vehicle procurement line, and a crew vehicle procurement line (I think Orion should continue but I wouldn't be concerned with an "alternate" crew vehicle procurement line). There are three clear budget lines that let all of the commercial companies bid comeptetively for a lot of money and it woudl be efficient and effective.

Finally, the NASA addministration costs are way too high and they need an eye opening direction to make them more effective. They really need to cut that portion of the budget to put more money to the three lines I identified above. If you want to create jobs this is the way to do it.

But, all of this has to be done quickly. There needs to be RFPs on the street in September with a goal for award in December. This is where the big paradigm shift has to take place in NASA. Things have to happen and they have to happen soon.

So I am no longer a Constellation supporter nor am I a "comercial" dreamer. Lets make NASAs plans realistic and define them succh that they will succeed.

Wow, so much for posting first thing in the morning. Sorry for all the typos in my post :)

But, I think my intent of my post is that we who are supportive of spaceflight need to work towards something that is meaningful in the budget and not kill it all in a "civil" war.

The 2011 NASA budget is driven by politics. Let's try to argue it and make it driven by real, tangible goals and real tangible procurements instead of fighting over "Constellation" or "Commercial" or "SpaceX is our savior" or "SpaceX is evil."

Spaceboy writes: you are not a scientist, you are not an engineer. You do not work in human space flight, you do not work for Constellation, Orion, Ares, Altair, ISS, or SSP. So all of your opinions are forumlated by what you read in stories that are usually so far from accurate as to be laughable. In short, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am very glad you are a space enthusiast, that is great, we need more. But dont tell people who are working the program that you know more about the programs than them because you read some articles online. It is naive and worse it is insulting.

This is a little over the top. Readers here are not only interested and informed, but many have spent a lifetime filling in the gaps of knowledge all the while holding down another job. And while it may be true that many–including me–aren't engineers, it is also true that policy decisions do not require engineering degrees. They DO require a firm grounding in the issues. Many commenters here have that grounding, as do I, and while I can't design a rocket from scratch, I can sure as hell evaluate alternatives.

The notion that only the rocket scientists are qualified to make policy decisions is naive. Yes, I do recognize that lots of our rocket scientists–and I admit that I do have a hero fetish towards them–are in a very bad spot nowadays. That's something that all of us can understand.

I would also point out, Spaceboy, that you can't know the sources of information that interested folks here read. Yes, there's a lot of glossy mis-information. But there are also excellent sources of primary research material available. I do know that I wade through much of it, being, I suppose, some sort of glutton for punishment!

So, let's cut each other a bit of slack here. I fully recognize and respect your level of expertise. Try to remember that many others might not be credentialed, and not qualified for some of the finer points, but we sure are able to make informed decisions.

What I know I would like is some informational leadership by the guys, like you, who can help informed folks move forward. OK?

@joshcryer

'SpaceX [is] closer than Ares I at getting manned flights in to space.'

Well, at least you're good for a giggle.

@moonman

'If allowed to continue, you would have destroyed US HSF.'

US HSF is deader than a doornail, now. Congratulations, ankle-biters.

The only question is how deep the knife will cut into the rest of NASA in the out-years, as people in DC scramble to balance the budget any way they can. All the space-science, etc, people who are cheering the demise of Constellation, so they can carve up the budgetary corpse, are in for a rude awakening down the line.

Remember the Superconducting Super-Collider? That's coming to a space program near you really soon now.

Noel, you are spot on. The budget cuts that are coming will pale to anything I have seen or imagined in my first career of 30 years. To be "fair" they are going to have to "hit" everything. Every citizen will bear a partial price; and some, that make for good soundbites, will bear more. Expect cuts in social security, health benefits, farm subsidies, school lunch programs, space programs, energy programs, even defense.

Nothing will be off the table. Kennedy's mantra: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Will become the new theme. What can we do? Pay more taxes... and stand in line for food stamps.

The era of large government is about to end... our "lost decade" is on the horizon. We may have peaked as a society, if not absolutely, at least for the near future.

That was a very good post and I appreciate your fortitude in expressing your evolving views. There are a few points I wanted to comment on...

I believe the problem isn't that ULA launch vehicles were not powerful enough for Orion but rather that Orion grew so bloated that it exceeded even the baseline and evolved capabilities planed for Ares 1. While the goal of having one spacecraft for all missions is admirable and would seem to save costs, it actually ends up being more expensive since your ISS taxi vehicle becomes vastly more capable, expensive and heavy than it needs to be. That translates to a launch vehicle with the same problems.

With regard to commercial markets, the international commercial satellite market is booming. Ariane and ILS manifests are very full. The problems with Sea Launch have made things even worse. U.S. commercial launch providers are moribund because they're not cost competitive due to the nature of their vehicles. Orbital has made some improvements in this regard and SpaceX stands to do well if their vehicles prove to be operationally reliable.

> you are positive this new plan is infinitely better when you readily admit there is no new plan.

Constellation destroys the ISS in 6 years.

Constellation has people in space going nowhere in 2030.

So Constellation destroys the greatest product of 30 years of STS operations and accomplishes nothing new to balance that off.

This is why people are telling you to get with the program.

"Alternateively, however, it was likely the only architecture that would have supported the vision due to the fact that Delta IV heavy (the largest EELV in our industry) could still not lift a fully capable ISS and/or Lunar Orion CEV."

Incorrect. The Orion CEV was projected to weigh approximately 23t in its 'block-I' ISS configuration. Both the Delta-IVH and the Altas-VH (the latter far closer to flight status than Ares-I even now) can launch that mass into LEO. ULA eliminated the trajectory 'black zones' within a very short time of NASA notifiying them of their existance.

In terms of launching the BEO version of Orion, as Ares-I would struggle to get the LEO version into a trajectory where the Orion's MPS could complete the ascent to orbit, I'm not sure whether relying on EELVs would have left NASA any worse off. At least ULA has a plan to upgrade the EELVs launch performance. They even have HLV versions planned!

Ultimately, Ares-I was an unnecessary vehicle, whose design was driven by the need to make the Ares-V pill easier to swallow. Once again, it was a fight that NASA didn't need to start as directly-derived SDLVs could have done the same job much more quickly and cheaply. Ares-V's design was apparently driven by a hypothetical direct ascent Mars mission archetecture, making it much larger and much more expensive than it really needed to be. Ares-V was so expensive that it would have made multi-launch missions (such as the projected Mars mission) incredibly slow and costly to prepare, several years instead of one or less.

Ultimately, the ALS's most important outcome was the loss of five years and billions of dollars. If it hadn't been for that choice, Orion could have been in the final stages of preparing for its first LEO test flights now!

I am a space geek , no engineer here but I have friends who don't know anything about our space program or whats going on. When I tell them after the shuttle retires we may have to depend on the Russians for a while the reaction to me is hilarious only because its so sad.

" What? No way hell naw man America would never do that! "

Why is it sad? I then ask them if they voted. Most say no,look apathy is just another part of human nature we have to deal with. I want cheap to LEO as much as every space geek NASA person or people affiliated with aeronautics that blog here. But we are the minority that knows whats going on..John q public doesn't know ,don't care or is watching the Olympics trying to figure out was curling is.

Postulating and talking about technology is one thing but making goals is what exploration is about.I guess the biggest question to ask is will human space flight ever now or in the future make sustainable profit? Is it possible to have any kind of to LEO launch system and make a profit?
The president thinks we can, I mean that's what commercial means right? Your selling a product.Time will tell.

No Bucks , No Buck Rodgers

@53hondo

'Perhaps we all need to step back and re-read"On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones."'

Oh, you mean the one where he says "Hubble .. is not fixable. Its performance will not be corrected. .. Let's turn it off, start over, and do it right."? :-)

Actually, I'm just hassling you - it actually makes a lot of good points. But he doesn't bat 1.000, any more than any other human...

@RC

'Constellation destroys the greatest product of 30 years of STS operations and accomplishes nothing new to balance that off.'

As opposed to the Garver 'plan', which will accomplish... a couple of extra years on that "greatest product", by paying other countries to taxi US personnel around.

Anyway, I personally think Hubble did a lot more than ISS, although I am very impressed by the construction of the ISS.