JSC Job Loss Update

And just where was Constellation taking America? Even if Constellation delivered on its promise, starting in 2020 we would witness two annual lunar mission resulting in a total of 8 American's launched into space. America's entire human space program would consist of 8 American's per year venturing to the moon. NASA currently is launching 35 astronaut's to ISS each year. But with Constellation, ISS to be retired in 2015, the point of reference Constellation program results in only 25% as many American's visiting space. And this is if Constellation succeeded as promised. The Augustine Commission has already prepared us for massive delays, LEO in 2017, the moon some 15 years later! And Constellation has numerous technical challenges including launching two very complicated rockets on the same day. A slip of more than a few days (the industry norm) means mission failure. Not to mention that Ares I & V can't provide the required performance to support a lunar mission.

NASA's proposed new direction continues ISS, encourages industry (The Boeings and Lockheed's that America's current human space program rely on, as well as other companies) to work with NASA to develop affordable LEO access. Provides the transportation foundation for private industry to utilize people in orbit for a range of pursuits. The new direction emphasizes developing key technologies that will enable robust in-space transportation, not only destined for the moon but asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars and beyond.

In short NASA's new direction will enable the future that VSE encouraged all of us to dream about. It is time to support Bolden, get the NASA centers moving in a productive direction to help us realize our dreams.

I was surprised by the many negative comments that Walt Cunningham's editorial elicited.

Things are getting to be a bit odd

The author states that regardless of congressional opposition it is clear that constellation is going to die. I think that is a premature statement, from what I have been hearing it sounds as congress will not allow the cancellation of constellation and instead will vote to continue the shuttle to 2015, cancel the ARIES-I program, develop a heavy lift capability and fund manned landings on the moon.

"And just where was Constellation taking America?"

ISS missions starting in 2014 or 2015 at probably a similar rate of shuttle launches with a highly capable spacecraft, several lunar design reference missions, and extensibility to Mars. Granted, I will get complaints that the Augustine commission said they couldn't make it to ISS until 2017, but NASA was maintaining a 2015 schedule. So, your 8 per year statement is false.

The program of record also included COTS commercial cargo with expansion for commercial crew so that was already there.

Remember that Constellation was an Earth, Moon Mars program with all of the same goals with Lagrange points, etc. And, again COTS was part of it.

If one doesn't like the Ares architecture part of the equation, then Bolden should have just changed the Ares architecture and leave Constellation's goals intact. He is effectively doing that, but in a bad way. He is killing a government funded alternative to the inherently more risky COTS line, and only defining a goal as Mars someday, but only when we have new technology.

So:
"new direction continues ISS, encourages industry"
Encouraging industry was already in the previous budget undet COTS
"The new direction emphasizes developing key technologies that will enable robust in-space transportation"
No clear definition there. Not clear on the gain.
"not only destined for the moon but asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars and beyond"
With the excception of Asteroids (which there was a study done to show that Orion could do that) those were the same goals of Constellation.

So what are we getting that's new besides further guaranteeing that schedules will slip even more to the right and risking assured HSF access to LEO based on an undefined contracting approach. The total budget line is the same for each plan so I am not saving money?

If we don't like the Ares architecture then lets change it, but this budget just adds more risk for LEO and more delays for exploration.

One thing is becoming obvious to me as NASA and the nation take on this fundamentally new direction.

The type of leadership needed for this new direction does not exist. I don't believe a military General, though familiar with the old NASA culture, or his politically oriented deputy, though probably very well meaning individuals, have what it takes to create a compelling future from the Obama plan and generate a massive , in step, everyone together, directional flow of human activity in this new direction, required to sustain it over decades.

This was a similar problem the old NASA realized in 2004 when the VSE came out. How does one sustain something like the VSE/ESAS/Whatever through many presidential cycles over decades? - a problem not solved by Griffin.

I would not want to be the NASA Administrator of this ship....

It still find it amazing people believe in this R&D canard. All of the development programs that were cancelled and replaced with R&D programs to develop "game changing technologies" while I was on active duty had their R&D programs cancelled a year or two later when they couldn't produce anything useful. It was well understood in DOD program managment and in the operational force that cancelling an existing development program with promises of a better program once the technology was more mature was just cover for the White House to cancel a popular program, by off enough of the opposition with the R&D scraps, and avoid a contentious battle. This was all done knowing full well that the R&D program would be cancelled in a year or two after the attention of the public had moved on to other issues. Unless Bolden comes out with a program of X vehicles that actually are built and fly then this plan is nothing but standard government playbook to kill government funded HSF.

That Cunningham sounds like one dumb Texan.

WOW. Seriously...WOW.

@webbja: Ok...we don't need the sarcasm.

@jcspace: I'll be sending you my bill for my broken jaw (after it hit the floor).

@eartshine: Hard to argue with most of that assessment. But where does that leave us? Even if we continued down the road of good intentions we have been on...I think...most know in their heart we would be no closer to the moon/Mars/etc.

With the stresses any program will be put under as the govt faces tremendous financial crises over the next 5-20 years (i.e. debt, fiscal gap, Soc Sec., Medicare, etc...) what type of program will survive the gathering storm?

There is no new direction if you're not funding the immediate development of something. You're just kicking the can for some future administration to possibly do something.

It doesn't require any breakthroughs to go to the Moon or to immediately build a directly shuttle derived HLV.

And why in the world would you do any research on building a new hydrocarbon fueled HLV when one of the administration's top priorities is supposed to be-- stopping global warming? Hydrocarbon fuels produce greenhouse gasses! Hello!

Marcel F. Williams

NASA represents less than 0.5% of the total Federal budget. So even if you totally eliminated the NASA budget, it would have a less than 0.5% effect on solving our budget problems while at the same time substantially reducing America's technological know how which will hurt our economy both now and in the long run!

If the Democrats and Republicans in Congress allow this new anti-NASA agenda to happen, then it will be pretty clear to me that its time for the emergence of a new political party in America that actually cares about the scientific and technological legacy of this country and its future!

Marcel F. Williams

@SkysTheLimit: 'what type of program will survive the gathering storm?'

I'd say it must have the following characteristics.

1. It must address short term political goals of pro HSF politicians. We can see now how the JSC, KSC, MSFC HSF pol's are up in arms over job loss

(this is where the Obama plans falls flat)

2. It must represent (not actually deliver) a promise of contribution to the larger population of Americans. This is tough for HSF because there is no present concern of the American public writ large that is satisfied by a HSF program. Local community concerns (i.e JSC, KSC, MSFC, etc.) are jobs jobs jobs. But nationally? HSF is not there yet. A form of contribution might be that is 'seeks to inspire our youth into STEM careers' (though this country is all about making money and entertainment...so that's a toughie challenge); another form might be the promise of commercial growth in HSF , thus creating the promise of more new jobs.

(this is mostly a job of rhetoricians, spinning a yarn, with lofty goals; Obama's plan addresses this characteristic quite well)

3. It must not appear to be 'too much money'; If the price tag stands out among non HSF political s, it will catch the wrong kind of attention. Also, this allows it to be chopped here and there as the economic storm waxes and wanes without the boarders of NASA HSF; in turn the short term goals must be flexible so their eventual delay does not impact the larger goals (Can't have happen what happened to Cx...death by a million cuts pushed off the moon landing till 2070!)

(Again, I think Obama's plan hits this one pretty good)

Other than that, I"m clueless like most of us reading the blog....and certainly torn between the POR going nowhere- so why bother - and the need for something tangible, mission oriented now.

Regarding this comment in the article: "As NASA administrator Charles Bolden makes his two appearances on Capital Hill this week, it has become ever more clear that NASA's Constellation program is going away, despite the protestations of some people in Congress."

Where is this person getting their information from? Did they watch the hearings last week? I would say there were approx 20 people questioning Bolden on Thursday and as far as I could see only 2 of those people were for the new plan. The other panel members grilled Bolden like steak and after watching that testimony I would say Constellation is very much in play. As Bolden said himself at one point that the panel members made it very clear to him that he must keep working Constellation.

Then on Friday, the draft from Congress leaked out that basically nixes the President's plan. So, where in the world does anyone come up with the opinion that after last week's hearing Constellation is doomed?

If the reporter who wrote that article is basing the future of the Constellation program on last weeks testimony (which he seems to do) then I would say the future is quite bright...

for SkysTheLimit, I was not being sarcastic. We have been getting information that congress will absolutely not cancel constallation and will instead only cancel ARIES-I. Congress has already put together a preliminary budget, which has been leaked to the AIAA. The budget extends the shuttle until 2015, cancels the ARIES-I, develops a HLV for both cargo and crew and land human beings on Mars. On top of what we are hearing back this also hit the AIAA news last Friday.

"ISS missions starting in 2014 or 2015 at probably a similar rate of shuttle launches with a highly capable spacecraft, several lunar design reference missions, and extensibility to Mars. Granted, I will get complaints that the Augustine commission said they couldn't make it to ISS until 2017, but NASA was maintaining a 2015 schedule. So, your 8 per year statement is false."

Ok lets say that Orion makes it to ISS in 2015. It has a destination for maybe a year before ISS was to be decomissioned under the original plan. Otherwise there isn't any money for Ares V and Altair. So at a billion dollars a launch and no place to go, what pray tell is Orion/Ares I going to be doing for the 10-15 years until the first moon landing? Orion by itself without a destination is useless, until the EDS is developed and a Ares V is available to launch it, Orion can float around in LEO with 6 astronauts spam in a can. After the initial shakedown of Orion, what is going to prevent another gap?

Cunningham was born in Iowa.

Not only was Cunningham born in Iowa, he was educated at UCLA and Harvard.

I couldn't agree with you more.

But facts are not an important part of most people's opinions. I always hear the "Why are we spending all that money when there are still hungry people in the world?" I know that is a silly notion for a multitude of reasons...but it what is out there.

My belief is that we are up against long term high unemployment, deficits, dollar devaluation, a diminishing ability to borrow to fund out debt...the list goes on. As an underclass grows in this country, education continues to crumble (etc), politicians will look insane to sponsor trips to the moon. (I'm oversimplifying here, which I'm sure you know.)

I know that NOT investing in things like space exploration will make all that worse...but their comes a point where people start eating the proverbial seed corn...and I don't think we can change that.

I could go on...but even I don't want to hear it :-(

Well...I am getting to the point that nothing would surprise me at this point...

I'm not doubting you...but what sources are there? can you post some? I didn't see anything on AIAA Industry.

One aspect that concerns me is the risk of flying the shuttle that long. I know it is not riskier than other manned sc. I know that there will be people who say "How can we go to the moon if we are not willing to risk flying the shuttle a few more years?!?!?!?" I KNOW those arguments...but they are NOT the issue.

Flying would be fine if we only had one (or no) shuttle accidents. The risk is political. And it's a major risk with the public support which is already "casual". Americans like to feel #1. Astronauts dying...for a third time...again on the shuttle...they will not understand. And they will not support.

Risk is not just the probability of something happening - it is also the consequences. It would be easier on the program to lose astronauts on the first flight of an Orion or on a Dragon. I know...it is not "logical"...but I think it is true.

NASA cannot afford another loss of life on a shuttle. That's the calculus of politics, public relations, and the American public (IMHO).

Can't argue with that...

I think...and have for sometime...that there need to be a bit more NACA in NASA. By that I mean R & D.

What I don't like about Cxp is that it lacks a strong enough component of developing new space exploration tech. Too many things have been abandoned for a timeline that was STILL not going to be met.

We will end up with a real Apollo redux...get there, plant a flag, and discover that out system does not allow us to stay.

Sustainability and R & D are key.