NASA's Perfect PAO Storm

Miles O'Brien's testimony was the weakest of everyone who spoke today. I found it interesting when he shared the comments of the American people that they were all hand-picked comments supporting the new agenda. You can read the 108 comments on this site alone and see there's just as many folks against the new budget plans. And of course he didn't even mention his survey. I guess it didn't give him the results he was looking for...

Amen!

No wonder the PAO is having difficulties. You can't make this turkey into and eagle no matter how hard you squint. Did you get a close look at Captain Gibson's face? When talking about the "new plan" he looked like he stepped in something that wouldn't pass for posies. The administrator looked decidedly nervous trying to defend something that's more smoke than mirrors. So, Mars is the goal is it? And everything else is sort of lost in the haze. Why don't we just make it Alpha Centauri? This new plan we'll get us there just as fast. What a cartoon! Good grief Charlie Brown!

Arguing that only corporations should fly to LEO and that government should only get access to government funded space stations only through the corporations is beyond silly.

Private spaceflight companies would be fools to get locked into a lot of government regulations in order to win meager NASA contracts delivering only a few humans to the ISS every year. Private companies need to take the money that NASA is giving them and stop worrying about replacing NASA or getting NASA contracts. These private companies need to do their own thing and focus on the real money: space tourism and launching commercial satellites.

Marcel F. Williams

The entire quoted section is very well done, and I noted as much while listening to it. Miles spoke to his strengths and nailed it. I'll listen to his "webcast"

These comments are absolutely on target!! Kudos Miles O'Brian for speaking an uncomfortable truth!

NASA HSF -- time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Constellation was a dead man walking from the day it was rolled out in the fall of 2005, just like NASP, X-33, OSP/SLI that came before it. It was just a matter of when it fell over -- and now we know: five precious years.

Constellation never had, and was never going to have, the necessary budget to make it go -- we knew it, others knew it. In fact no informed, objective person could be surprised about how this is playing out. It was inevitable. Reality is brutal to people living illusions.

Mike Griffin maybe an intelligent man, but unfortunately he wasn't smart enough to see that it was no longer the 1960's.

Agree with Orion1. Miles didn't reflect the results or the fact there is opposition. Bolden was no better when he wouldn't answer how his input was given to Obama. It sounded like input was given individually and not as a team or committee. A poor way to develop our national space policy.

The last Space Shuttle booster test firing is tomorrow at ATK in Utah. It's been quite a ride working on this program. Hope there is a future for America's space program.

A friend and former boss lives with her husband out on a farm in West Texas, far from any NASA or contractor facility. There is a community college nearby where they have taught courses on space. So imagine her response when many of her former students and fellow professors have been calling her to lament "the death of NASA by Obama". New commercial space and technology initiatives, an increase to the NASA budget? Nobody knows anything about this outside the beltway.Miles is right: Washington, we have a problem.

Miles did a nice job just telling it as America saw it. NASA and the public both had the same reaction to the budget..."WTF!" Only at NASA, they had to screw on a face and try to sell it, and they just couldn't do it. Could you? Think of how Bolden feels. He's an ex-astronaut! But also a good soldier.

Us common folk see only one thing. No US manned spaceflight. Unfortunately, that coffin was nailed shut when some Texas "rocket scientist" decided to quit flying shuttle before they had anything ready to replace it.

In any event, it was quite the show today. Should have ended with the credits from Indiana Jones.

It's not the messenger or how it was delivered.

It's the message!

It's that simple. This is a dud!

@stardust-516

"Constellation was a dead man walking from the day it was rolled out in the fall of 2005, just like NASP, X-33, OSP/SLI that came before it. It was just a matter of when it fell over -- and now we know: five precious years."

That's irony for you. Somebody saying how great the new plan is, with its vague goals of "Game Changing Technology" and "Paradigm Shifters", while mocking NASP, X-33 etc. For example, from wikipedia: "The X-33 would flight-test a range of technologies that NASA believed it needed for single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicles (SSTO RLVs), such as metallic thermal protection systems, composite cryogenic fuel tanks for liquid hydrogen, the aerospike engine, autonomous (unmanned) flight control, rapid flight turn-around times through streamlined operations, and its lifting body aerodynamics...Thus, the X-33 was not only about honing space flight technologies, but also about successfully demonstrating the technology required to make a commercial reusable launch vehicle possible."

NASP, X-33 etc - were all very specific and well funded projects that were supposed to use and demonstrate game changing, cutting edge technology. They failed because we could not make the cutting edge technology work, at least not in the time allowed or for the budget advertised, so they were killed. Now we have a vague set of goals where tons of companies and centers are going to compete for less funding to run a multitude of pet projects, with no specific goals.

> It's the message!

We decided not to fly to the Orient this year, as we have done about every three years for some time. We had discussed taking a cruise instead, but now we think maybe we will drive to San Antonio for a weekend. It is somewhere we have never been, and we can visit the Alamo, and they have an amusement park and a tourist zone near the river. Perhaps we will even invest in a GPS receiver to make the journey safer.

With this adventure completed, we will be well positioned to go farther in the future. Perhaps even to El Paso.

I thought he did a good job and the disconnect is certainly very real. The CxP backers should be very familiar with that.

His opinion on the plan aside, I believe it benefits HSF to have a webcast of such quality on the internet. I would suggest that people think about throwing him some change. He scores good interviews and raises the profile of HSF.

> It's not the messenger or how it was delivered. It's the message! It's that simple. This is a dud!

And I always ask the same question of the Cx supporters: How was it not a dud?

With fixed budget profiles, delays already baked into the program, and the extension of ISS to 2020, Cx would not leave LEO before the late 2020s, only have a flight rate of about twice a year, and have no budget to develop any landing craft.

How is taking 2-3 times as long as Apollo and doing no more and possibly less than Apollo exciting? That IS the reality. Cx wasn't going to do anything for nearly 20 years except provide jobs. If that is what you want, be up front about it, but don't pretend Cx was going to actually do anything worthwhile.

Do the Cx supporters think that repeating the Apollo 8 mission 60 years later is worth the nearly $150 billion it would take to get there? If so, please stand up and be counted.

> So imagine her response when many of her former students and fellow professors have been calling her to lament "the death of NASA by Obama".

I saw a story the other day where a poll asking if people approved Obama's health plan showed a strong "no". Then when the pollster described a second healthcare plan, the people had a much favorable opinion.

It was the SAME plan. Obama, initially known for being a skilled communicator, seems to be being out maneuvered on all fronts of communication.

> Something is broken, Morrie.

Unless PAO wants the Obama plan to fail. It seems to me there are lots of people inside NASA trying to scuttle the plan.

With Obama's number one priority, healthcare reform, on life support and major democratic strongholds in trouble in the coming election, I think people smell blood.

Spaceboy,

Check the facts, the reality is that X33 failed due to gross incompetence and mismanagement.

Read the investigation reports and summaries.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5414

This is not failure due to unobtanium, it is Frank Borman's stated cause for the Apollo 1 fire
"Failure of Imagination". Its what killed all of the NASA Astronauts, not "unknown unknowns", not "extremely improbable" events, but common and well known hazards.

An aluminum tank should have been used for the LH2 suborbital flights, while the composite tank was undergoing step by step rigorous proof testing.

Blind faith that something will work, and betting the entire program on that one untested or unproven technology is utter and total stupidity!

Rationality is the key to success!

Rchard Feynman (challenger investigation) framed it best.

"for a successful technology the laws of physics must take precedence over public relations for Mother Nature cannot be fooled"

@Spaceboy,

Its more than ironic, its tragic. I have intimate personal knowledge of all these programs I mention. In fact you could replace "Constellation" with "NASP" or "X-33" or "SLI/OSP" in my comment above, along with the program start date, and it would be just as true.

Considering the years, careers and billions of $$ wasted on these doomed programs, this is truly tragic; not to mention the embarrassing situation we now find ourselves in, having to buy rides to space from the Russians -- no one would have believed this back in the 1970's after the successful Apollo program.

NASA HSF has struck out -- time for a new batter.

Miles testimony, or monologue, was rather sad.  However, when pressed by Nelson, he seemed to crack and realize it was preposterous not to have a clear plan, goal, budget and time-line for an  HLV and capsule for Mars or other mission... any mission.

Miles, and I suppose most of the folks backing this odd/suspicious plan, keep pushing the "bring the people along" chorus.  You land on the moon for the first time... once.  After that, yeah it turns into mundane work from a distance until the next giant leap.  People didn't much notice the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions until frankly Apollo 11, except for space nuts.  Do you know why Miles?  Because we were at war and the economy wasn't going particularly well (sound familiar?).   But in that moment, breaking escape velocity and stepping onto another heavenly body brought the world along.  Yeah, flags and footsteps may have ended that mission, but it started the fire in the belly of all of us.  The impossible was now possible.

You spoke of the expansion across our country, sure everyone could get in a wagon, you supposed.  But really Miles the analogy should have been getting in a boat, a ship.  But you couldn't use that analogy could you?  Because those boats that came to the shores of the new world were backed by governments because a voyage of that magnitude, that risk, that ability to build a vessel to withstand that journey, were only funded by governments - because they were the only ones with enough capital.  As a history major, I imagine you are well aware of how previous explorations were funded and also aware of when they were taken over by the "commercial sector." Yes, anyone could get in a wagon, but who got them to the new world?

I was a bit shocked that you didn't mention that you were trying to become an astronaut, Miles.  Did that fact escape your monologue, or did you think it would make you look as if you were bitter about it and were in fact trying to kill HSF as a result by backing this absurd budget?  Just asking.

Look, I/we are all for commercial handling LEO.  Hell I'm even for them doing beyond.   But as the only option?  All of our eggs in this basket?  And if they fail, we pay the Russians the same amount, if not more, than it would cost to build the vehicle on our own?

And, what, dear Lord, was Bolden trying to say about kids not trying to become Astronauts?  I understand when you give that child a speech about trying to get into the NBA - because if you don't make it, who the heck needs those skills other than on a basketball court?  If you fail becoming an astronaut, you still have a million options to choose from.  In fact, astronaut candidate looks pretty good on the resume.  Why would Bolden tell a child that?  Are there any adults around this man or a PR representative to filter out these bizarre comments?  It was shocking.

Bolden stating we can't get to Mars in 10 years is the saddest and the most pathetic statement I have ever had the displeasure of hearing from an American in a position of authority.  After Apollo, plans were made to go to Mars within the next five years - they were drafted and ready to go.  Nixon changed the course of human kind (in other ways as well).  To say we could not make it there is embarrassing, defeatist and sad.  If we try and fail, then we fail.  Not trying for fear of failure is for losers and the telepresence crowd.  If you want to sit home and watch, fine, TiVo it for yourself and explain to your grandchildren how you used the remote control to do it.  But for the rest of us, the ones who want more than a job (best thing Bolden said today), more than mere existence on this planet, we do desire to try and risk failure for the what means the most to all of us deep down... future generations.  That is what exploration is all about.  Look into the eyes of a child and you will see that future.  And for every time Bolden tells someone not to try, we loose that future, for all of human kind.

"People didn't much notice the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions until frankly Apollo 11, except for space nuts. Do you know why Miles? Because we were at war and the economy wasn't going particularly well (sound familiar?). But in that moment, breaking escape velocity and stepping onto another heavenly body brought the world along. Yeah, flags and footsteps may have ended that mission, but it started the fire in the belly of all of us."

I think you must have missed the 60s. The space program was very well covered in media of all kinds and ever-present on the minds of the US people through Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Every mission was testing out new capabilities and new technologies. Interest declined sharply after Apollo 11 when every one said 'been there, done that'.

"Bolden stating we can't get to Mars in 10 years is the saddest and the most pathetic statement I have ever had the displeasure of hearing from an American in a position of authority. After Apollo, plans were made to go to Mars within the next five years - they were drafted and ready to go."

No, sorry you are wrong again. There was a plan drafted but the mission would not have taken place until the second half of the 1980s, 15-20 years later. Because of zero interest on the part of the US people immediately in the wake of Apollo 11, it was not sold. We were lucky to get Shuttle on a very restricted budget.

NASA has been told, 6 years ago, when the Vision was announced, we would have a stable but small budget, about the same as since 1970. We should try to use it to develop new technologies and do new things, and once technologies were proven, spin them off to commercial interests. The last Administrator was not paying attention. The message has not changed.

The US people might pay attention again once we start doing something new and exciting. Constellation was neither, but more than anything Constellation did not give us assured access on a reasonable schedule and for a reasonable cost. In Constellation's wake all we are hearing is 'how difficult it was'. It should not have been difficult; it was doing nothing new. All you really needed was some quality, qualified leadership and experienced know-how.

You want Mars in less than 10 years ? Constellation could not give us LEO in 15 years.

Stop you belly-aching and get to work!

It's the message!
It's that simple. This is a dud!

Please clarify: Which message is a dud?

That there is a huge and irreparable gap between Shuttle and its replacement? (Blame it on Bush)

That CxP wouldn't have put *anybody* into orbit before 2017, and still would require ISS to be shut off first? (Blame it on Griffin)

Or the President saying so?

Speaking the truth is not a sin. Changing from a plan that's truly not working to another that's risky is a gamble, not a sin. If you're sliding on an icy highway and choosing between colliding with a car in front of you or diving into the ditch, what would you choose? And who can fault you for it?

If the Obama plan achieves what they're hoping it will, this will energize HSF for decades to come, including providing a foothold for travel beyond LEO. CxP did not have that to offer, even in the optimistic scenario. It would always be expensive, infrequent, and hard to pull off every time -- like STS.

The polemic in which the risk is already lost is not helpful to the debate. The discussion should consider the range of risks in each scenario -- CxP and Merchant7 -- and evaluate them along with your own uncertainty in judging them. In light of that, there's too much opinion-stated-as-fact here.

Long ago I felt that NASA "Management" was suffering from Performance Anxiety when it came to manned flights.

That being said, some time later-- still some years ago-- it struck me that I could smash that together with some tenets of game theory:

"Leadership Maximizes Gains... Management Minimizes Losses".

I also recall someone in sci.space.tech commenting that NASA shouldn't be doing the photography of astronauts on the moon (or elsewhere) because they should be making it possible for National Geographic to send a photographer.

Another argument on sci.space.tech was over our current world-wide "economy of scarcity" with regard to lift capacity... and that we need a lot more capacity before we'll know what will be enabled by it. Having it funnel through a government operated monopoly is probably not the best thing to do... though, really, sometimes government subsidies don't hurt when there is *real* competition (which brings us "over-capacity" and "resilience").

Monopolies go cheap and build what Bruce Schneier (of www.schneier.com) refers to as "brittle systems"... and it becomes the argument for "economic efficiency". Competition-- and the concomitant over-capacity this implies-- provides for a more resilient system when failures occur.

As failures HAVE occurred.

Also, we need enough over-capacity to be able to be able to improvise better... "A good plan executed today will beat a perfect plan executed tomorrow"- General Patton.

In all of this, NASA keeps looking for the "Perfect Plan"... and so they couldn't handle the "Good Plans" when it comes to publicity.

The biggest problem I see with NASA is that they want to deny their mistakes in order to look like their work is "perfect".

(Gawd, a lot of this sounds like the diagnosis for HAL we heard in the movie "2010", doesn't it?)

I was not able to catch any of the hearings yesterday since I was out speaking to the public about the new plan.

But it does look like Charlie Bolden needs some serious help in communicating strategically. Interesting he abolished that bunch earlier this week, but not too surprising since they sure were not getting the job done.

I think that the new plan and direction is the way to go, but like anything else it needs to be properly sold to the stakeholders, and that includes the public, Congress, and the inside NASA and contractor community as well.

Miles' job on the NAC is to sort of look over the shoulder and offer helpful advice and critique. What NASA and Bolden need is some serious help with some people to lay out the plan to communicate and to prepare some good content.

Scheduling the speeches, figuring out who to deliver them to and when are all well and good, but if you have not figured out what you are going to say and why, then you will not get the job done.

The just disbanded Strategic Communications group was really good at trying to control what people were already doing with common logos and branding, and organizing efforts to distribute NASA materials through independent commercial networks.

Constellation, was an excellent example of how, in five years, NASA never produced anything convincing to tell people what they were going to do on the moon and why.

"You are hereby directed...to accelerate the super booster program for which [NASA] was given technical and management responsibility."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower letter to T. Keith Glennan, NASA Administrator, January 14, 1960

This preceded Kennedy's address to Congress in which he called for a moon landing program by nearly 18 months.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of NASA management - too much, all aimed at minimizing [their personal] losses. I've not seen a NASA leader maximizing gains since John Aaron left the space station program. That was 20 years ago.

I am amazed by the fear mongering that is coming out of the Congress and Constellation supporters. They had the opportunity over the last 5 years to get us on a solid footing towards replacing Shuttle and with the right people, Orion would have been flying. If the NASA management cannot get out of the way, and they've shown themselves incapable over the last several years, then its time to turn the job over to industry and give them the incentive to succeed.

It is time to move ahead.

O'Brien's testimony was rather weak, in sharp contrast to the three other witnesses who actually knew what they were talking about.