Huntsville Strikes Back

Well again, does it really matter? The Obama Administration has nothing to gain by making Alabama healthy. This area is so solidly red, that it's a guaranteed loss, no matter what. The Administration has much more to gain by shifting the resources gained from eliminating Constellation work at MSFC and Huntsville to other areas of the country, including Florida and even Texas.

Good for them!

And there will be more groups forming as well to fight this giant leap backwards for NASA HSF!

We don't just give up and walk away when things get tough!

How many of the people on the task force for reviving the Constellation/Ares zombie were people who contributed to the Constellation (and esp. Ares I) project being so horribly mismanaged in the first place? Mike Griffin and Steve Cook are the first names I recognize off-hand.

sc220, that's not true, since space flight is so valuable to those places the administration can use it as a sort of gimme. "Gimme a health care vote, you get to keep Cx." My original thought was this was what was happening, however, the way Bolden has taken charge and expressed a desire to move NASA forward, I think my initial inclination was off.

So while I think there is political capital to be gained here, I would tend to agree with you that this is not what is happening. Bolden is getting to shape the future of NASA, if those who were behind Cx don't want to shape it for the better, then they can go home.

I think sc220 is actually right ... both Alabama and the Huntsville area were strongly against Obama in the election, so this is his chance to get revenge ... in spite of the fact that up to 2200 highly-paid professionals may soon be out of a job in Huntsville alone.

Remember Maslow's Hierarch of Needs that we all studied in management school? It applies here. As long as we have the basic requirements, we think of loftier ideals. We obtain those ideals, and we can think even higher. But ose your job, and your needs become a lot more basic and survival oriented ... actually next to the bottom on the Maslow pyramid.

Do yes, it's a jobs program now to the individuals and communities affected, moreso than a program that will work (regardless of the reasons given to restore the funding).

Haha, perfect image. The SpaceX and Orbital Rebel Alliance must and will defeat the Empire's (NASA's) bureaucratic internal design, Ares and Constellation! Too bad Alabama, it's nothing personal.

Reading all the political self interest and jockeying for local economic advantage by these senators and governors leaves me wondering what NASA is actually for?

Was it ever about space exploration? I do wonder now as I have not seen one single sentiment said that is any thing to do with the safety of the men and women who fly these space craft.

monsieurcollins, NASA has been about space exploration and most of it is still done that way (we've learned so much about Mars, the solar system, and the universe in the past decade than any decade before). However, rocket technology is assuredly a pork project to keep constituents happy.

You can certainly bet on the money going to those states that got him elected in 2008 (CA, FL, OH, MD, VA). In fact, Lori Garver just announced at the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference that Dryden Flight Research Center would be in charge of safety over commercial human space flight. Bye bye JSC (TX), hello DFRC (CA). The folks at MSFC (AL) shouldn't get too excited about doing propulsion technology development as you can bet that money will go to GRC (OH). He'll toss a bone to GSFC (MD) in the form of an Earth-observing satellite. There will be some big money for facility development projects at KSC (FL) to launch SpaceX vehicles built in California. We'll have to wait and see what LaRC (VA) gets out of all of this (perhaps X-43 will come back). I'm afraid Alabama and Texas will have to suffer for being RED states in 2008.

It's not just the politicians in Huntsville that are fighting back. Ordinary workers, retired workers, aerospace instructors, etc realize that our Human Space Flight capability and our country's leadership in space is being destroyed with this new "Plan" that Obama is putting forth. I call space program plans that exist only on paper science fiction and that is pretty much what Obama is all about.

Check my blog entry, "Off Topic...but Important", at my web site, RV-103.

And how does Obama et al. propose to get around Shelby and Sessions? If they wish, they can make life miserable for Obama et al.

OmegaPoint, you misread Garver's speech. Dryden is in charge of handling safety for *SUBORBITAL* commercial vehicles -- logic being that it was the test site for X-1 and X-15, which are much more analogous to SS2 or similar vehicles than an orbital vehicle. Flying something like that out of Houston with small towns every 15 miles doesn't make much sense. It's a pain to even launch a 200lbf, 1 mile altitude student built rocket around Houston.

However, it would make no sense to give safety anlyses of orbital systems to Dryden, since most expertise in orbital operations is at JSC. I have yet to see anything indicating that it would be otherwise.

Which one of us has selective memory, Rocketman? How long was Constellation "only on paper" and "science fiction"? From VSE to ESAS to Consellation, how long did that take? If you can look that up and get back to us that would be great.

Our comrades in the Soviet Republic of Huntsville appear quite distraught at the collapse of their latest five-year plan. I am sure General Secretary Shelby will do everything he can to try to prop up their "industry." Continue in your conviction, brothers, or we risk capitalism developing in space!

I worked out there. I saw this come to life with my own eyes. All Obama has is a non-specific plan that exists on paper and nothing more.

From my web site, "Despite the inadequate funding, NASA was able to develop Constellation. After 6 years and 9 billion dollars invested by the taxpayers, hardware has built, workers are assigned to the program from nearly all nine NASA centers, and ground support equipment has been built including the launch facilities at Pad B, the launch tower, and a Launch Control Center. There was and still is actual hardware and workers that are making Constellation come into being. In October of 2009, Constellation had their first successful launch of the Ares I rocket. The day after the announcement that Constellation was to be cancelled, workers had just attached the final piece of the new launch gantry."

"The Constellation/Ares zombie"

For most of you who frequent this website and believe you are doing something grand and bold by bringing down the evil NASA empire, I have to say that you just don't have a clue what you are supporting.

First of all let me be clear, I agree that NASA has some deficiencies and that as an engineering entity they have their faults. But, I am baffled that there are so many that frequent this site that have somehow been slighted by NASA that they feel that they need to bring it to its knees with evil thoughtless statements. Certainly everyone loves to bring up the famed Augustine commission and prove to themselves that Constellation was a useless endeavor.

But, I have this to say. Behind every NASA employee on the Constellation program there are 10 contractor employees that have given their lives to this endeavor. They uphold the concept that, the customer is always right, and have done everything withing their power to support their customer's needs regardless of the value. They have worked within limited budgets because the "customer" truly believed that it would be more beneficial to stay within budget then to hold timelines. they have answered requirements driven by the Columbia and Challenger accident investigation boards because no "real" engineer in the industry believes that any astronaut should die in the exploration of space. In order to do this they rely on historical lessons learned and put forth designs that are guaranteed to succeed the first time with full emphasis on mission success. And they would have succeeded regardless of how much emphasis you put on the Augustine commission.

So, while I don't stand too much in defense of NASA, I stand strongly on the contractors who have worked hard to make a program succeed. And, as an engineer in the business for 23 years I can tell you that most of you who stand in opposition to Constellation truly don't have a clue what you are talking about. And for those who believe the myth that a Space program can be run like an airline, you truly do not understand what is required to succeed in this industry.

So, on behalf of the contractor community I take strong offense to those of you continually bash the Constellation program as a useless NASA endeavor. Also remember that NASA employees are civil servants. While they may lose their dream and be transferred to another contract, they will still have a government job. But for each one of those employees, there are 10 contractor jobs behind them that beleived that pleasing their customer was the correct thing to do and they believed in a dream of taking humans to space and going to the moon again. Those contractor jobs will be gone and all they can hope is that NASA can issue RFPs fast enough to recover maybe 30% of the jobs that existed with Constellation.

While I don't believe in keeping a program going just to save jobs, I will say that regardless of what you say about the architecture, Constellation was going to succeed and it would have gotten us to the moon. And if my tax dollars are going to go to anything I would rather it go to those contractor employees that beleived in a dream and put their lives into that dream.

And while I might express fault with small commercial companies I do find some pride in their desire to succeed. What I don't want to do, however, is put my tax dollars towards re-learning lessons of the past with these upstart companies.

So for you folks who think Constellation was outdated technology and some sort of bastard Apollo Redux, you are wrong and I take strong offense. I want my tax dollars to go to those contractors who believed in a dream and did everything in their power to make it come true. When you talk about politics and what state is trying to save their constituents remember this:

"The Lockheed Martin Orion Project office is based in Houston, Texas, near NASA’s Johnson Space Center. The team includes major subcontractors Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences Corporation and United Space Alliance; and a network of 60 minor subcontractors and small businesses in 22 states across the country."

From the SpaceX website "by keeping the vast majority of manufacturing in house"...

I would rather support the dreamers who exist in all of those 22 states and support what Constellation does and what we need it to do to provide assured US crew access to space. If SpaceX succeeds, I will be the first one cheering, but you have to understand that NASA represents more than just a lesson in how to succeed in the commercial space industry. If we have to spend a few more dollors to go to space in the right way and with pride not only in the acheivement but in our governement and ourselves, I go with Constellation.

And for those who continue to bash the Constellation program, you truly don't understand what it was like to watch a man walk on the Moon and to know that it was an American and have profound pride in your country.

AMEN!

Wow, so many comments coming from so many directions. From what I see, much of the infrastructure nationwide has been dismantled over past 40 years. When they built Shuttle there was still a lot of facilities in place. I heard there was a lot more "lab work" at MSFC in the 1970s (even after Apollo) and it declined steadily since. I know at Ames there has been a decline, heck, Stores Stock no longer stocks hardware. Just office supplies.

So all this discussion of Obama shutting down HSF is kind of moot, it would end anyway except for occasional Orion flight to LEO and splashdown in the ocean with Navy frogmen jumping in after to attach a flotation collar. I haven't seen major effort to new propulsion systems and Saturn V class rockets in development (i.e. big contracts awarded, hardware built, loud noises at test facilities, lots of people being hired across the country).

When VSE was announced, John Pike of globalsecurity,org predicted this was an elegant way to shut down HSF and replace it with artwork. So far it looks we are still on schedule. MSFC seems to be one of the first major casualties.

I think NASA is getting kicked around for political points and used as a distraction from the "big ticket" items in the federal budget. Kind of like blaming the Arabs of our foreign dependency on oil when our two top importers are Canada and Mexico.

Rocketman, Ares I was projected to cost $40 billion through 2015, and each flight was projected to cost almost $1 billion dollars by the Augustine commission. Almost $1 billion per flight, Rocketman. Aers I could not have been completed before 2017 at the current rate, which stupidly would have put its development *after* the decommissioning of the ISS.

Contrast this with SpaceX who got $1.6 billion to develop Falcon which will fly in the next 3 months and which was developed in the timespan of 8 years (active development more like 4). 12 years for Ares I, 4-8 years for Falcon 9. It's a joke of epic proportions. Epic. Ridiculously epic.

You could plop an Orion on top of Falcon 9 if you had a Raptor (H2/LOX propulsion) for the second stage. They might even go that route since they're going to get more funding for development (well, SpaceX isn't in the 2011 budget but they could well do it if they start meeting their milestones).

jcspace, with all due respect to those contractors, they've been drinking at NASAs teat for far too long, on an unsustainable path. It was only a matter of time before their contracts got canceled.

It's better for *all parties involved* that the future of NASA be sustainable, be able to survive both Republican and Democratic administrations. And be able to create a vision for future exploration that cannot be tainted by budget cuts, because it is financially tied to the commercial sector rather than tax payers. As long as NASA is a government program it risks being torn down every time someone else comes along that wants to change its direction. The new direction proves that oh so well (but this has happened so many times in NASAs post-Apollo history that I can't even remember them all).

Bolden doesn't want to lose those contractors, and the space industry will hurt if too many of them go on to a different path. Those contractors should move to commercial space as soon as possible, because commercial space is going to get that money that otherwise would have been spent on jobs programs. Yes jobs are going to be irrevocably lost because the commercial sector doesn't play around, if you don't meet your milestones or don't contribute to the plan, you're gone. If you can't contribute in the commercial sector, though, I personally think you should find another job somewhere else.

Your comparison to SpaceX tells the story. In reality space has always been "commercial." It's just that there's a difference between "commercial companies paid by government with cost-plus contracts," and "commercial companies paid by government to meet milestones."

There's a reason SpaceX is going to be a magnitude cheaper than any other future option in space. It's because SpaceX does do almost everything in house. They have complete control over Q&A, they have complete control over most aspects of the production line. And if the administration has their way, there will be a half dozen other companies doing it the same way. There's where your contractors go. Go to SpaceX and tell them that you can make copper nozzles for half the cost that they make them in house, with the same level of quality assurance. SpaceX would jump on board in a heart beat.

The future for NASA is bright guys. It's very bright. For the first time in my life I've actually felt like commercial space has had a chance to do what it's been promised to do for half a century. Promises made by guys like you and me, who are part of the various space societies, or who are advocates of space endeavors.

Think about it.

Pork barrel politics by a bunch of backwards redneck hicks who only know how to hold onto the past. You folks fighting to restore Constellation are the ones who want to destroy human space flight. You're just too stupid to realize it. It's people like you that hold this country back from really great things. Small minds, no vision, just regurgitating the past. How boring.

If "The One" gets his way, we will find out if you are right or not. I have my doubts and will continue to back an active program that actually has the hardware built and not some Science Fiction PowerPoint.

From reading all the comments, I don't think anyone is going to change their position on this matter. Time will prove one side right and one side wrong. I do wonder how many of you actually work at a NASA center or how many of you are arm chair critics.

Until then, I will continue to fight for Constellation, our Human Space Flight Program, and for the contractors that have given their lives to Constellation and the dream they believe in. You guys want to sit around and wait on these new companies to relearn what we have done for 50 years, that is your choice. I just wouldn't trust "The One" to follow through and support any true program that goes further than a PowerPoint.

Its obvious that there's going to have to be some compromise between Congress and the Executive branch. Obama has put Democrats in deep political trouble in Florida. And Obama may have also doomed his chances of winning Florida in 2012.

The first steps to resolve this political situation, Obama needs to:

1. Support full and immediate funding for a directly shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle to be completed within 5 to 10 years.

2. Support full and immediate funding for a CEV space capsule and a space plane similar to NASA's old H2 concept or the Air Forces X-37 concept. Both vehicle types should be capable of being utilized by the HLV and launch vehicles capable of lifting at least 20 tonnes to LEO.

Such a compromise will give Congress assurance that the US will have alternate government access to orbit for both NASA and the US military just in case the private commercial companies have any difficulty developing their vehicles.

But it would be extremely foolish of the US government to place all of its eggs in the baskets of companies that have never placed a single human into Earth orbit or returned them safely to the Earth.

Marcel F. Williams

"Those contractors should move to commercial space as soon as possible, because commercial space is going to get that money that otherwise would have been spent on jobs programs."

Your statement represents the fallacy of the "commercial space" philosophy. You don't see any large contractors moving to truly commercial space because they know that there is no true market for commercial space. You can't hope that just because NASA puts billions to commercial contractors that they will actually have anything to do once they are done. There has to be a market and there has to be a profit incentive. SpaceX is looking for a big contract just like everyone else. They will double or triple their costs when NASA levies requirements on them. And if there was a profit to be had in carrying crew to space they would be there now.

The reality of the "commercial space" line in the budget is that we are killing one program just to fund another with the same budget line. That is waste, not innovation or spurring commercial interests.

Also, last I saw, Lockheed Martin, ATK, Hamilton Sundstrand, etc. were all commercially traded in the stock market. What's the difference between them getting a government contract and SpaceX getting a government contract?

US access to space is not about making a market viable, its about American pride and making sure that Challenger and Columbia don't happen again. You don't do that on the cheap.

Possum,
When you start the "name calling" what does that tell everyone about the strength of your argument and your grasp of it?

"there is no true market for commercial space. You can't hope that ... they will actually have anything to do once they are done."

So what you're saying is that nobody actually values HSF enough to pay for it, so the only way it'll happen is to hijack public money for it.

Good point. Let's cancel it.

"You folks fighting to restore Constellation are the ones who want to destroy human space flight. You're just too stupid to realize it. It's people like you that hold this country back from really great things. Small minds, no vision, just regurgitating the past. How boring."

Wow possum -- so I guess backwards rednecks hicks didn't oversee and help build previous launch vehicles that got us to the moon and other destinations and were planning to do just the same until the new President decided to dismantle the program. As our good friend (and fellow southerner) Forrest Gump says "Stupid is as stupid does." I rest my case.

So JoeCooper, you would choose to change the line:

"we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too"

to

"we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because we think we can make a buck doing it and if we succeed maybe 40% of the time, that's OK because rockets fail every now and then"

> What I don't want to do, however, is put my tax dollars towards re-learning lessons of the past with these upstart companies.

> what we have done for 50 years

Nobody wants anyone to lose their welfare and have a hard time. That is not what this is about. The gist of what you're saying is that you want the government to have more power, and other people want government to have less. It is an idealogical difference.

But you're way off when you both have this idea that some americans have personal experience building Apollo while others don't. That some americans are qualified to do the work but others are not. You fall down hard here and you should both know better with your experience.

Everyone is learning the same lessons again. Constellation's difficulties prove that. SpaceX's difficulties prove that.

An unbadged man said to me as I left my JSC building last Friday, "Is this a place of business or a campus? I mean, is this 'where it all happens'?" I was going to challenge him but he explained he was a bus driver from that bus over there that had brought in some people. I said, just, Yes Sir! and went on home. (It was a tough week.)

In this day and age, should I have pointed over his shoulder and said... That flag up there on that roof flys every day there are Americans on orbit. It has been there continuously, longer than I've been working here. If you go through those doors across the parking lot and turn left and could get past the locked doors and guards, you would be in Mission Control. THE Mission Control Houston. You could pick up a mic and talk to the astronauts and cosmonauts working in space right now. If you turn right instead, you'd find a building full of mission operations people who a week ago had no question that their contributions were valued by the country. Today, I don't know how that question would be answered in that building. I'm angry the question has even come up.

I wasn't born here at JSC, but I got here as soon as I could. I just don't know whether here is supposed to be 'where it all happens' anymore.

Rocketman....

Rock ON!

Your not alone, nobody is alone on this, we're fighting!

Spread the word with this link!....

http://web.me.com/michaelokuda/CONSTELLATION/GO_BOLDLY.html

This is a long way from over people.

We're seeing yet another attempt to RAM something down America's throats they don't want from this administration. Are they now even breaking laws to stop Constellation before the American people have their say through congress?

We may not know where everything will lead yet, but know this...

It is NOT 2008 anymore and the Obama "magic" is OVER.

I'm furious, and I'm not the only one, and some of them are members of congress!

Yes.

I don't like that 40% part, though. Launching 40% of a rocket is more Constellation style.

Atlas-V lofted 20 out of 20 sats. Maybe we should buy those instead.

jcspace,

"Also, last I saw, Lockheed Martin, ATK, Hamilton Sundstrand, etc. were all commercially traded in the stock market. What's the difference between them getting a government contract and SpaceX getting a government contract?"

Lockheed Martin, ATK, Hamilton Sundstrand, etc. know that the ship they were collectively building for NASA will cost $1 billion per flight and they know they are not competitive with SpaceX which will cost $50-70 million per flight ($150-200 million to NASA, because NASA is being generous and knows a deal when it sees one).

This is precisely why Lori Garver said that if those companies wanted to, they could put a bid in and build Ares I. They won't do it because NASA was giving them money to build something that was wasting taxpayer money, not something that could be remotely achieved in a competitive environment. It was, to me, a subtle jab at those companies, and at the previous NASA admin.

Ares I was a paper napkin idea by Griffin that sounded good in theory but when implemented was a disaster. Yeah, it bites to hear this, it sucks, I'm sorry, but that's effectively what happened. They wanted to do SDV to "keep manufacturing base" and they wanted to make the transition away from STS as smooth as possible. I liked that plan. I loved it, I thought it would bring us Ares V. But over time, I realized, I wouldn't see Ares V until the mid to more likely late 2020s. SpaceX or others are going to build super heavy lift by the late 2010s early 2020s. If COTS funding goes as scheduled it could even be bigger. I'm told that Elon believes he can get a Saturn V level rocket built for $2 billion. A far cry from the $40 billion for Ares I alone.

"US access to space is not about making a market viable, its about American pride and making sure that Challenger and Columbia don't happen again. You don't do that on the cheap."

I hope you're not an American because this is the most unpatriotic thing I've ever read regarding the state of our space program. As capitalists the first and foremost goal for our space program should be to make sure that it is viable, through incentivization and risk taking in our own people. By not taking risks in the market, through milestone based competition, NASA is just another social spending program.

We should be proud to have a half a dozen different rocket programs, we should be proud that we build a massive structure in space capable of holding 3 more people than intended, we should be proud to be the only nation in the world to have explored all of the bodies in the inner solar system (and most of the outer ones). We should be proud to be focusing on a future for commercial flight.

CessnaDriver,

Great site. I've got a post on my blog to at www.RV-103.com with my thoughts on the matter and a email from Dr. Harrison Schmitt concerning Constellation being cancelled.

There are many people that see the big picture that HSF is being cancelled, not just Constellation. Obama's new "program" will be greeted with "ooo's and ahhh's", but it's an empty plan just as he is an empty suit. All glitz and no substance. Constellation has substance and does exist. It is not science fiction.

This fight isn't over yet.

@jcspace

'Behind every NASA employee on the Constellation program there are 10 contractor employees that have given their lives to this endeavor. .. They have worked within limited budgets because the "customer" truly believed that it would be more beneficial to stay within budget then to hold timelines. they have answered requirements driven by the Columbia and Challenger accident investigation boards because no "real" engineer in the industry believes that any astronaut should die in the exploration of space. In order to do this they rely on historical lessons learned and put forth designs that are guaranteed to succeed the first time with full emphasis on mission success.'

Great post, particularly your comments about budget, schedule, and safety (above).

FWIW, the engineers in NASA whom I speak to think very highly of the contractor personnel - their competence and dedication both.

The thing that most upset one person I spoke to was that Constellation was really starting to hum, that after some initial uncertainty about architectural details (e.g. SSME vs J2-X) and plugging together groups of people who had never worked together before, the uncertainty was gone, big progress was happening, and people were really forming tightly coupled teams (across center and civil-servant/contractor boundaries). Now all that is poentially going down the drain.

joshcryer,

You just don't get it, however I will cede one thing. My statement should have read "NASA's role in US access to space is not about making a market viable, its about American pride and making sure that Challenger and Columbia don't happen again. You don't do that on the cheap"

Ignoring the "un-american" line, capitalism is not based on creating a market with government money. That is based on the same failed logic of the stimulus plan that I can just pump government money into the economy and someone will create more product and jobs than the market will support. If the government wants to give SpaceX and anyone else a tax credit equal to or more than their investment in launch capabilities to help spur the market, I am all for it.

But, no one has yet defined what the 5.8 billion dollars over 5 years in the "commercial crew" line of the 2011 budget is. If this is just pumping money into the industry to create a market, it is not what NASA was intended for. NASA is not a stimulus organization. Alternatevely, if it is just 5.8 billion more in government contracts to build hardware, it is no different than what Constellation was doing and we then stand to throw 9 billion dollars away just for the sake of putting the word "commercial" inm the NASA budget.

Capitalism is based on a market with a profit motive. You have this dream that "SpaceX or others are going to build super heavy lift." What market are they going after with that such that it makes it economically viable to do that? No one is making any money on heavy lift launchers today because spacecraft are getting smaller and there is no market for it.

While the 1958 Space Act does say that NASA shall support commercial space, I do not beleive that statement was intended to just have NASA dole out billions to anyone that can put a poorly created picture of a paper spacecraft over the earth (See Sierra Nevada/Space Dev).

NASA's goal should be to do the things that are hard and make that knowledge available to all markets. First and foremost, at this time NASA's role should be to ensure US crew access to space so that we can keep that foundation so we can do the other things. Going to space is still hard. NASA was working to keep that access viable with a "safe" and well understood architecture. Without that we do nothing.

Everone here can just make up numbers like Ares was going to cost 40 billion in 5 years but that doesn't make it true. But, remember this, as much as you bash NASA and their ability to do things, in the amount of money that has been spent on TARP and the Stimulus bill NASA has, since their inception, put 12 men on the moon, put Skylab in orbit, completed the ISS (without which, there would be no market for manned space), developed the hubble, explored Mars, visited every major planet in the solar system, and has strived to keep Americans in space despite the fickle nature of government.

NASA's drive to do alot with very little (0.5% of the total budget) is what I take pride in. The reason you find so much push back from NASA and their contractors is that your philosophy of a "mystery" market and the proposal to move budget dollars to that mystery market away from programs that will work has the potential to kill US human spaceflight all together.

"Ignoring the "un-american" line, capitalism is not based on creating a market with government money."

Regulated, American, capitalism, is. And it's the strongest most powerful system of capitalism in the world. Cars would not have been viable without the interstate system (originally built for military, but used for individuals). Airplanes would not have been viable without the Post Office Airmail system. Nuclear is not possible without billions of dollars of loan guarantees.

When the government takes those kinds of risks the payoff is extraordinary. These are risks that investors simply will not take, for example the interstate system costed more than Apollo several times over, and continues to cost billions every year. And nuclear is even a bigger example, because while reactors are quite profitable over their lifetime, it takes 20+ years to pay investors back. Investors don't want to take such risks.

Space is the most risky business you can embark upon. American capitalism can and should be jump started by government intervention, especially since the resulting costs are far lower than Cx was going to be. If tax payers really knew how much Cx was going to cost there would be a lot of outrage, but it's been quietly relegated to obscure websites that most citizens won't read.

@joshcryer

'there's a difference between "commercial companies paid by government with cost-plus contracts," and "commercial companies paid by government to meet milestones."'

ROTFLMAOAYI. Those "cost-plus contracts" always have milestones, and the contracts can be (and often are) terminated when they don't meet those milestones.

'a vision for future exploration that cannot be tainted by budget cuts, because it is financially tied to the commercial sector rather than tax payers.
...
For the first time in my life I've actually felt like commercial space has had a chance to do what it's been promised to do for half a century. Promises made by guys like you and me, who are part of the various space societies, or who are advocates of space endeavors.'

So why, 50 years after HSF started, where is the existing private program to do HSF in anything other than the most limited way? (The Russians don't count, that's a state-sponsored program that takes a few ride-alongs for budget help.)

Hey, I'm a huge believer in private enterprise too. But private enterprise is only feasible when there's a way to make money, and so far, opportunities to make money in space have been pretty limited. (Getting a $1B contract from Uncle Sammy to deliver stuff to the ISS is not, IMO, really 'making money from space' - it's just the government spending their space exploration money in a very slightly different way.)

Your seeming notion that private investment is going to stump up on the order of a billion $ (which is what it would take to have any meaningful impact on what's being done by the existing government-funded program - any amount like $10 million is going to be lost in the accounting noise) seems utterly infeasible to me.

The engineers and technicians are smart and dedicated. They just need to be working on something sensible, not Ares or Constellation.

This fight isn't over yet.

It is over. Even the Republicans are for the new direction. The ESAS interpretation of VSE is dead. It runs counter to the fundamental values of our country, and this is recognized by conservatives and liberals alike. The only people who are championing it are local delegations. You find no support for the old approach anywhere. Let me repeat...ANYWHERE.

I pose this challenge. Identify a congressman or senator from a non-NASA district or state that is for the old direction of NASA. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who gives a flip.

Well I tell you what, hold off putting up Constellation's and HSF tombstone until the budget gets through Congress and just ignore us while we continue to tilt at our windmills. We will give up riding our donkey once the budget is passed showing Constellation is dead. Until then, we will continue to fight for Constellation and America's HSF.

@ SC220

"You find no support for the old approach anywhere. Let me repeat...ANYWHERE."

OH really? LOL
Some that oppose Obama's plan of gutting NASA HSF...

Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt, Tom Jones, Homer Hickam, and plenty more........

http://web.me.com/michaelokuda/CONSTELLATION/VOICES.html

We're in good company.

The 2008 republican platform supported return to moon by the way.