Sen. Vitter Has Been Drinking the Koolaid

I thought that was weird too. To be so insistent on identifying a single brain behind the budget is petty. I was surprised how short the whole thing was. Not sure if the senators got what they wanted.

Keith sometimes I think you are as biased as Senetor Vitter seems to be. What Vitter was trying to point out is that their is a perception that Garver is making decisions that the administrator should be making and I have to agree with him. A few weeks ago when Bolden made the statement that he would like to see Americans on Mars, the big joke around the agency was and I quote "I wonder if he approved that through Lori Garver".
Lori Garver has no real nuts and bolts business or space experience yet the Obama administration was hell bent on giving her a leadership role in NASA. Once they realized that congress would never confirm her, they approached someone (i.e. Bolden) who stood a good change of being confirmed by congress to fill the positions. However, once he filled the position it did seem that he started acting in the capacity of deputy administrator and that she started making decisions as administrator. In order to give it a thin film of credibility he has been the one rolling out the decisions, but in the background it seems that she has been the one making them.
What Senator Vittel was trying to point out (and rather poorly if i might add) was the fact that they confirmed Charlie Bolden as the administrator, not Lori Garver and if she is taking on the role as administrator then congress has every right to put a stop to it.

Go Senator Vitter!

Let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we? Lori Garver is an Obama follower. She's going to support her "ally", the Democratic party. Keith, you're a democrat. We know that. A Barry fan for sure.

To say that CxP was canceled for nothing less than political reasons was accurate. It was a "Bush" program. The only reason we made it to the moon is because of Johnson, another Democrat who had to keep the spirit of his democratic brother, JFK, alive.

All these people saying CxP was over budget are plain WRONG. CxP was always UNDERFUNDED, never getting the money that was projected or promised. Year after year, things were postponed or put out until the time when more money would come in (post Shuttle). These are the reasons it fell behind. As an Obamaite, you never had anything good to say about CxP and plenty good to say about commercial space, even without ANY details. How disgusting!

I'm tired of space being politicized. It's more than a Democrat or Republican issue....it's an American issue! Sad thing is that we could have done both, CxP for Heavy Lift (Moon, Mars, etc..) as Direct/Ares V while commercial take LEO. That IS WHAT AUGUSTINE PROPOSED, CORRECT????????

Talk about more BS on on. Shakespeare wrote, "A pox upon your house!" Seems there's going to be a pox on many houses when other nations take the lead and the US sits on the sidelines.

What happens when Russia invades Poland (or Georgia, sound familiar), the US disagrees, and the Russians shut us out of Soyuz? What happens when the price doubles or no seats are available? We painted ourselves into this corner and it's too late to get out.

Sounds like it's time to speed up Heavy Lift/Taxi/Ares I and get things going. Time to get the NASA bureaucracy out of CxP for sure!

The guy acted like Lori Garver invented the free market. At first I assumed he just wanted someone to attack who wasn't a retired marine corps major general and retired astronaut and first permanent black NASA administrator. But now I think maybe he just hates women?

Anyway, of all the complexities of this issue to discuss...

PS: could you believe the baiting and switching discussion about what children do or do not find inspiring, as if these guys know, and as if NASA's prime directive was interfacing with children. Maybe it is because congress is full of people who think like children

Totally agree. This is a policy shift and should not be personalized. And the word radical is purely inflammatory, even when used to describe a budget shift away from one of NASA's more focussed, sustained efforts; towards a very uncertain future for NASA and its established contractor base.

I was disappointed in the Administrator's handling of the questions about 'inspiration.' His point that children are inspired by talking to Astronauts on the ISS, but that noone cares how they got there, seems to invite permanent purchase of Russian seats. And, it doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever talked to kids ... fire and smoke generate way more excitement than crazy hair while on an exercise bike.

Didn't get a chance to see this live -- too much real work to do. Anyone know when a YouTube posting will be up on it??

Yeah, I couldnt really make sense of Vitter's tack. Just political attack stuff. He was angry about the direction but didnt exactly offer any solutions or even drill down much.

You REALLY hate Cx don't you Keith. That's cool its your blog and your time so I can respect your opinion. What do you suggest we replace it with? I'll help you with choices:
A. Atlas V
B. Delta Heavy
C. Jupiter Direct 246
D. SpaceX in 20 years
E. Nothing - give up our lead in space and defense
F. Your pick
G. "Study and Research" - aka kill it softly

Keith's note: I would have flown Orion on an EELV (Atlas or Delta) and eventually on a Falcon. I would have pursued a sidemount HLV. But the best option is to utilize the private sector to develop things and not government design bureaus.

Anybody ever wondered why Bolden as the NASA Administrator wasn't allowed to pick his own Associate Administrator??
Instead she came along as part of the package deal it seems.

I thought Vitter's line of questioning was quite strange too. It was in marked contrast to Nelson's reasoned introduction and questioning. I'm sure Vitter's support of NASA and Constellation has NOTHING to do with being from Louisiana (and I'll say the same for Nelson and his motives being from Florida).

His comments about Kennedy cracked me up. Like he (or the rest of Congress) would support a Mars mission if Obama declared one by the end of this decade. It's a pointless comparison. This is not 1961.

Yes Vitter had some kind of agenda that he was following. I thought Nelson brought a little sanity to it at the end.

The fact is though, there won't be a human Mars mission withing 50 years. Someone has to get to reality here. Seems like a reasonable goal for NASA would be to get a heavy lift vehicle in production within 5 years, something much more realistic and important than talking about Mars as a "vision." If you want to be an astronaut, first go to college and see how that works for you, ok?

Also remember what it was like after Challenger A national security panic. And now they will depend on the Russians?

There are no good choices as overall it is federal budget problems from wars and other runaway expenses. Raise taxes maybe. Reagan did.

You REALLY hate Cx don't you Keith. That's cool its your blog and your time so I can respect your opinion. What do you suggest we replace it with? I'll help you with choices:
A. Atlas V
B. Delta Heavy
C. Jupiter Direct 246
D. SpaceX
E. Nothing - give up our lead in space and defense
F. Your pick
G. "Study and Research"

A, B, and D for launches, with a mix of the SpaceX Dragon, Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser, Boeing/Bigelow Orion Lite, Orbital Cygnus, and Blue Origin's capsule for spacecraft. At least, that's where COTS and CCDev have their money. Curiously enough, the total cost of developing all of those is a fraction of the Ares I, on a much faster schedule.

My opinion is Garver is about Garver, space is just a vehicle for her.
She's climbing the ladder via the democrat party and is happy to carry their water, no matter how foul it is like this so called Obama plan.

Her time as Kerry's advisor convince me enough she was bad news for HSF at NASA.

When a democrat makes a run for President. She makes sure she is first in line for an appointment.

Thanks for that Keith. I meant to ask more specifically about the Heavy Lift aspect of the cancellation of Cx which is what the Senators seemed to focus on today. Even Hoot Gibson today said he was in favor of a valid Heavy Lift plan which is not in the currently proposed budget. I have to agree with Hoot as I don't see us being able to get there relying on the private sector and even if we could is it possible to do everything a nation needs to do using the private sector? If so why don't we outsource the AirForce to the private sector? Granted that is a drastic comparison but there are some things a nation can't rely on the private sector to do. One explosion and loss of lives on a SpaceX rocket and the insurance companies and board of directors will fold the tent in thirty minutes.

Like you Keith, I am very much a proponent of less government but there are some things that do make sense being under the direction and protection of the USG and manned Heavy Lift is one of them in my opinion.

@Keith Cowing

'who seem to be convinced that Lori Garver has sold her soul in the pursuit of some sort of plan to destroy human space flight ... The silly thing about all of this is the illogic of someone like Lori ever being inclined to want to "kill" human spaceflight. Quite the contrary. ... to suggest that she is against human space travel - of any kind is ludicrous.'

She may indeed feel in her heart that she's doing the right thing for HSF. However, there is one small problem.

Ms. Garver is a policy person, not an engineer. She may indeed think this new technical direction is the Right Thing, based on what she's been told by others (and goodness knows who they are, or what they have told her). However, there is a very real possibility that this new direction is, in fact, a disastrous one for NASA. If it is, all her good-will is, quite literally, worthless.

'go look into the inner workings of OSTP and OMB. That is where these policies were developed and delivered to NASA - not the other way around.'

So now we get to the casting around for others to shift the blame to.

Yes, some of the blame probably does lie with OSTP/OMB. However...

It's been quite clear since the transition that Ms. Garver is the Administration's point person for space. Bolden was quite clearly brought in quite a bit later, after a lot of scratching around to find someone who'd take the Administrator job. (No doubt all the wiser heads knew which way the wind was blowing, and didn't have any particular interest in the job of being the hatchet person.) And, as has been pointed out, she came as part of the package. It's pretty clear who has the President's confidence on space issues.

It is obvious that Keith (whoever he is) has been drinking the Koolaid too, just a different flavor.

... and putting a still shot to make someone look bad it the oldest trick in the book. Too bad people resort to that.

'Anybody ever wondered why Bolden as the NASA Administrator wasn't allowed to pick his own Associate Administrator??
Instead she came along as part of the package deal'

Excellent observation. Either she's there because she's who the Administration really wanted to run the Agency (only they knew she couldn't be confirmed), in which case what does that say about the Administration's level of respect for Bolden - or she's there to keep an eye on things inside the Agency for the Administration, in which case what does that say about the Administration's level of confidence and trust in him?

The irony is that they've put Bolden up as a front man with technical expertise - the exact inverse of the situation under James Webb, where he was the interface to the political entities, and the direction of the Agency internally was left to the technically profound Deputy Administrator, Hugh Dryden.

Which leads me to ponder that recent change where center directors now report to Bolden... wonder what's going on with that.

Keith's note: by all means, please feel free to indulge your fantasies - even if they have no demonstrable basis in fact ...

Just a word of thanks Keith I too was perplexed at Vitter's line of 'reasoning', "magic fairy dust"... of course it's obvious now!

Lori Garver has no real nuts and bolts business or space experience yet the Obama administration was hell bent on giving her a leadership role in NASA. ( webbja February 24, 2010 7:08 PM)
A vile calumny sirrah:
"Garver's confirmation as deputy administrator marks the second time she has worked for NASA. Her first stint at the agency was from 1996 to 2001. Initially, she served as a special assistant to the NASA administrator and senior policy analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, before becoming the associate administrator for the Office of Policy and Plans. Reporting to the NASA administrator, she oversaw the analysis, development and integration of policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, and the NASA Advisory Council."

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/garver_bio.html
You will note that she has been Congressionally approved TWICE. And if anything Lori was part of Hillary's Presidency rather than Barack's. If there is one thing that sets your current President above the political hoi polloi... it's the willingness to rise above such pettyness and use the best eg Gates, Garver and even HR Clinton!

Are you listening: 4TheJourney (February 24, 2010 7:15 PM)
Cx was cancelled because it consumed all of the oxygen in the room and then some. Even if the funding had been found the program would not have been sustainable. And it shut out the IPs that could have made it so.

Loved the "I'm tired of space being politicized." after a long political rant! Oh delicious irony. And finally 4TheJourney (February 24, 2010 7:15 PM)

Shakespeare did not write "A pox upon your house!"

Romeo and Juliet | Act 3, Scene 1 Mercutio:
No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a
church-door; but 'tis enough,'twill serve: ask for
me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I
am peppered, I warrant, for this world. A plague o'
both your houses! 'Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a
cat, to scratch a man to death! a braggart, a
rogue, a villain, that fights by the book of
arithmetic! Why the devil came you between us? I
was hurt under your arm.

"A villan that fights by the book of arithmatic..." Hmmm. Now there's a Quote!

Here is a link to today's hearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY&feature=channel

Keith- not sure what fantasies you are talking about but past NASA Administrators chose their own AA.
For instance:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/aug/HQ_05227_geveden.html

The Senators' impulse to save jobs in their states is good to see, no matter their party affiliation.

From the second panel, the comment about developing an in-line SD-HLV and Senator Nelson's comment about wanting to "perfect" the proposed NASA budget, would seem to hint at a way to save jobs in several states without saving Constellation, per se.

To be fair to the current budget proposal, it should be noted that the job loss vector began years ago, when presidents and NASA administrators of both parties blew multiple opportunities to decide on a robust post-shuttle plan, with a smooth transition, including capability goals and architecture. Of course, there were some false starts along the way...

As for Lori Garver, Senator Vitter mey be stirring the pot in hopes of still saving Constellation. I met Ms. Garver years ago at a NSS conference, and she struck me as passionate about moving spaceflight forward, powerfully analytical, grounded, and yes, politically astute. Keep in mind that for the last several decades presidents of both parties have placed political allies in number two spots throughout government. Nothing new or diabolical in that.

Finally, one Senator's comment that (paraphrase) "Orion could take our astronauts beyond low earth orbit" made me think that politicians, even those in space states, don't really understand spacecraft design specifics, and could really do with a briefing or two on the nuts and bolts, before they make decisions.

> Ms. Garver is a policy person, not an engineer. She may indeed think this new technical direction is the Right Thing, based on what she's been told by others (and goodness knows who they are, or what they have told her).

Wow this is so wild I can't even articulate a response! Gold medal!

Moon to Mars: Hello? Is anybody home? Geveden was Assoc. Admin. Shana Dale was the Deputy, and she was placed there by the Bush Administration to keep an eye on Griffin. Ultimately they all failed each other.

Some Administrations do a better job than others of quickly getting into the Agencies and replacing the politicals with their own. This time, NASA was ping ponged around until they evidently gave in and allowed Sen Nelson to force his own pick, Bolden. Garver had been the Deputy pick from the earliest days...just after her famed 'look under the hood' comments.

Realizing that many readers do not live within the Beltway, nor understand its ways, why not ask questions and locals within can answer you. That way, you won't embarrass the rest of us with your illogic?

'Major strategic decisions about space policy are usually not and IMHO should not be made by technocrats or engineers'

Actually, I don't disagree with that.

The problem is that what's happening here can't be described in those terms, unless you look at it as a decision to get out of actual manned space programs for the indefinite future, and re-focus on pure R+D. But we keep being assured this is not a decision to get out of manned space, it's just going to be doing it 'differently'? So are we getting out of manned space (a true "strategic decision[] about space policy"), or not? If the answer is 'no', there is no "strategic decision[] about space policy" here.

The notion that this change in direction represents a change from 'government' to 'commercial' (which would, I agree, again fall under your rubric above) is also ludicrous. As has been pointed out before, there is no plan for private enterprise to actually make money from space. As before, all the dineros will be coming from Uncle Sammy, and all the hardware is still being built by private companies. The only difference is who the systems integrator is - NASA, or the company. Somehow I have a hard time calling that a "major strategic decision about space policy".

Finally, the most obvious aspect of this new policy is that one particular set of rockets has been cast aside, in favour of a different set, which are deemed to be 'superior'. This is not a policy decision, but a technical one - and I'm not really wild about policy people making technical decisions.

The assumption that "only an engineer" can make the right decisions ignores the poor outcomes that NASA's engineer-dominated culture has produced over the decades. Lori, like many of us, has diagnosed the over-arching problem to be *costs* that are far too high to sustain.

So, what tool should we use to drive down costs? A centrally-planned government program, or an American-style competitive system where entrepreneurs are constantly on the prowl for savings or greater productivity? Which would you bet on for the lower costs that we must have to make space exploration worthwhile to the voting public?

Other commenters bemoan the lack of deadlines in the new approach don't appreciate how pernicious deadlines were in Constellation. Good ideas that would reduce cost were ruled out of bounds, if they also might delay the advertised landing date by a year or two. Producing propellants on the lunar surface is case in point. Making one's return fuel on the Moon, rather than carrying it from Earth, doubles the productivity (or halves the cost) on human expeditions. But that was Not Allowed; cost was not nearly as important as defending the advertised landing date.

Now we can devise a Moon effort that can be sustained, because it will have declining costs and thus rising worth in the eyes of the public.

I also enjoyed Bolden talking about "days" to Mars again (vasimr?). Wait until he tells Congress he needs a space based nuclear reactor to power it. Someone will need to tell them someday.

Spacefaring4ever aka as The Mighty All Knowing Space Policy Expert. Next time I get that irresistible urge to have Your opinion I won't ask. Spare me your hubris!

As has been pointed out before, there is no plan for private enterprise to actually make money from space. As before, all the dineros will be coming from Uncle Sammy, and all the hardware is still being built by private companies.

So, wait, your saying that Bigelow is only going to going after US government money, with his habitats? Or Space Adventures is just going to act as travel agents for government astronauts?

Did I miss something?

'The assumption that "only an engineer" can make the right decisions ignores the poor outcomes that NASA's engineer-dominated culture has produced over the decades.'

Actually, only engineers do have the specialized knowledge to make engineering decisions (e.g. how thick to make a beam, to support a given load, to give a simple example of a engineering decision - I will pass over a fuller examination of what is, and is not, truly an 'engineering decision').

Your complaint actually appears to be about engineers who aren't as sharp as one would like - and yes, NASA had and has those - and had them during Apollo, too.

'So, what tool should we use to drive down costs? A centrally-planned government program, or an American-style competitive system where entrepreneurs are constantly on the prowl for savings or greater productivity?'

The irony here is that I'm somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, politically - e.g. I think that Social Security is an inter-generational Ponzi scheme that ideally should be phased out. Having said that, I'm also pragmatic, and much as I'd prefer to see space being done by private enterprise, the fact remains that at this point, that's simply not economically feasible. The real choice for the moment is between government space, and no space.

Sometimes there's just no substitute for the government, and pure research is an example of this. Take computer networking: without government-funded research in the late 50's and 60's, we just would not have the Internet of today - and I don't know that private enterprise would have produced it, without several decades of public seed money to get it rolling.

Which leads nicely to my next point:

'the lower costs that we must have to make space exploration worthwhile to the voting public?'

The issue, if one truly believes in private enterprise in space, is that the basic costs are too high by orders of magnitude. I think we need fundamental technological breakthroughs to get there - incremental improvements in existing technology aren't going to do it. However, that also may take some time - just as Babbage's insights into computing were centuries in advance of the actual technology that made his visions practical.

If the administration had had the cojones to say something like:

The current technology is simply not compatible with true private enterprise in space, due to its cost basis; we also believe a major strategic change towards private enterprise is necessary for long-range success in space. We are therefore going to completely terminate the current government manned space program, and turn instead to funding a large amount of radical, long-range research, in the hope that someone, someday, will discover a way to revolutionize the cost structure and make orders-of-magnitude changes in the cost to get material into orbit.

well, that I could respect. I mean, I might not agree with it (but I might, it has a certain aggressive charm - turn thousands of scientists and engineers free to see what they can dream up), but at least it would be honest. It would mean we would have to accept the fact that, like Babbage, it might take a very long time, and technological advances we cannot even begin to forsee today, to get there. Is everyone who's into space ready to accept that kind of timeline, though?

This 'oh we're not really canning HSF for the forseeable future' (when we are), and 'we are turning towards commercial space' (when we're not, really - just changing who the system integrators and vendors for Uncle Sammy's space purchases are, is all), pfui. If they can't be honest about what's as plain as a pikestaff, I don't trust them about anything else, either.

'Other commenters bemoan the lack of deadlines in the new approach don't appreciate how pernicious deadlines were in Constellation. Good ideas that would reduce cost were ruled out of bounds, if they also might delay the advertised landing date. ... cost was not nearly as important as defending the advertised landing date.'

This I can really sympathize with, actually.

But it's really unfair to beat up Constellation because its deadlines were slipping (I know you aren't doing that, but others were), and then turn around and castigate it for not slipping its deadlines to save cost!

One can't have one's cake (keep on schedule) and eat it too (slip to allow changes which minimize costs).

'Now we can devise a Moon effort that can be sustained, because it will have declining costs and thus rising worth in the eyes of the public.'

Sorry, I think that's a chimera. The average person doesn't give a rats' hindquarters if we go back to the Moon, or to Mars, or whatever. Sure, they might give up a beer or two to make it happen - but not anything major.

Now, if it turns into a matter of national prestige, or security - as it did for Apollo - then maybe things would be different. But they aren't.

In the video at 1:08:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY
Senator Lemieux asks Bolden "Are we going to go to the Moon before we go to Mars?"

Bolden says "My thought is that you will inevitably have to go to the Moon".

So WHY ARE WE CANCELING CONSTELLATION?! If you want to get rid of Ares 1, fine. But the rest of Constellation is Orion, Ares-V, Altair, the Lunar Electric Rover. All these things are things we will need to go to the Moon, which Bolden acknowledges that we will have to do.

"Curiously enough, the total cost of developing all of those is a fraction of the Ares I, on a much faster schedule."

How much do you want to bet those proposed costs don't climb? One of the biggest problems is bids or proposals that are low balled and then start climbing. I can see SpaceX saying, "you want to witness tests and see test results? That'll be another $XXX"

"As has been pointed out before, there is no plan for private enterprise to actually make money from space. As before, all the dineros will be coming from Uncle Sammy, and all the hardware is still being built by private companies.

...

Did I miss something?"

Yes, you did. Having private companies do the work, even if on the government's dime at the outset, provides strong incentives (profit, growth) to develop innovative, cost-effective systems. It allows the government somewhat more flexibility, as contractors can be hired/fired/re-directed faster and with less resistance than the civil servant corps. It skips the tech transfer process, by putting technologies directly in the hands of industry. It enables management of programs in a way that more directly rewards performance and achievement of goals. It avoids increasing the size of the government workforce, for whom make-work projects will surely be created down the road, when current activities sunset. It enables the government to choose systems that best meet the requirements of its missions, rather than try to squeeze missions into the pre-set capabilities of a government-built system. As policy, this approach is superior.

Because they are not sustainable - the same big problem of Apollo. In the end, it's not the build cost that matters, but the sustaining cost.

Just like the US did with Apollo, we need to be willing to try the scary thing, that hard thing, and develop new approaches to spaceflight, instead of reusing approaches that even experts in the 1950s said we needed to move beyond. That's what the new budget is about, as highlighted in the details released this week, yesterday's testimony, and I suspect today's.

A few weeks ago when Bolden made the statement that he would like to see Americans on Mars, the big joke around the agency was and I quote "I wonder if he approved that through Lori Garver".

Do people actually think that a former two-star marine general, Vietnam veteran, test pilot and astronaut cannot lead for himself and is in the backseat to Ms. Garver? For crying out loud, the man was not even that interested in the job knowing how political it is. He could have worked anywhere he wanted, why would he take a job where he had no power? That is the silliest thing I've heard.

Argue all you want about the (lack of) merit of the new direction - but stating that Bolden is not in control makes absolutely no sense. If you are convinced this is the case - then show me the proof!

Ms. Garver is a policy person, not an engineer. She may indeed think this new technical direction is the Right Thing, based on what she's been told by others (and goodness knows who they are, or what they have told her). However, there is a very real possibility that this new direction is, in fact, a disastrous one for NASA. If it is, all her good-will is, quite literally, worthless.

This is not a new technical direction - it is a fundamental policy shift. The new policy is get NASA back to R&D and let private industry worry about operations. Now there are good and bad points in that policy, but it is certainly not about engineering. In fact a lot of the engineering work in either case would be done by private industry (LM, Boeing, SpaceX, Orbital, ATK - most if not all will have parts of HSF in either scenario).

As to your assertion that only engineers can make engineering decisions, that is patently not true. I'm an engineer, I work for an engineering company. I have seen engineers in management make excellent business decisions. I've seen bean counters make excellent engineering decisions. I have also seen engineers make awful engineering decisions, and business people make awful business decisions.

Costello made the comment just now - "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.

Plenty of folks in the NASA trenches do believe that the current budget was cooked up by Garver and OSTP in secret and behind the administrator's back. It's the only reason that can explain the complete surprise Bolden and the center director have shown in the all hands meetings and the scramble to define a new plan to fit the new budget.

'Having private companies do the work .. provides strong incentives (profit, growth) to develop innovative, cost-effective systems. ... It skips the tech transfer process, by putting technologies directly in the hands of industry. It enables management of programs in a way that more directly rewards performance and achievement of goals. ... It enables the government to choose systems that best meet the requirements of its missions, rather than try to squeeze missions into the pre-set capabilities of a government-built system.''

Nice collection of buzzwords. I guess you missed the post where I indicated that on economics questions, I so far dubious of government that I consider Social Secutiry a multi-generational scheme.

There's one problem with this nice vision of yours: it won't work (for reasons that have been belaboured here extensively).

When a innovative, accomplished, engineer who is dedicated to private enterprise like
Bert Rutan says this plan is a really bad idea, everyone should listen.

Agreed. Lori Garver was onboard before Bolden. I believe she had already convinced the president that this was the way to go. When Bolden was hired, he was told to make it happen. And having been a marine general, he knows how to take orders and follow them without argument. Bolden is the puppet and fall guy for this whole "radical" plan.

Paranoia and ad-hominem attacks are a cancer. You cannot have a meaningful dialog and reach agreement on a mutually acceptable plan if you first inject a conspiracy theory or attack your opponent's integrity.

So if you want to nurse such theories, go ahead, but it's 100% self-defeating. See the Israeli Palestinian conflict (and 100 other examples) if you doubt this. Instead, I recommend you start by assuming you have an honest disagreement with an honest opponent. You'll make a lot more progress that way.

I assume they look baffled because the vitriolic and sometimes psychedelic opposition was unexpected. Goes along with impression that they didn't prepare for any opposition at all.

> The issue, if one truly believes in private enterprise in space, is that the basic costs are too high by orders of magnitude.

You're failing at tricking people into thinking you know what you're talking about. People who are less transparent keep telling you you're wrong, and you need to get the hint.

"The assumption that "only an engineer" can make the right decisions ignores the poor outcomes that NASA's engineer-dominated culture has produced over the decades."

In defense of objective engineers everywhere, it's zealots of any profession that are the problem. The art of system analysis is so lost in today's NASA that zealots tilt the requirements to produce the desired outcome then use the reports as fig leaves in much the same way the Bush administration used its legal opinions.

Indeed, I would argue that it is precisely because people without an engineering mind (politicians, lawyers, accountants, lobbyists,...) are driving and constraining engineering decisions at every level that the US government has lost the ability to deliver on complex engineering projects using any sane amount of resources.

People are invoking the name of Burt Rutan as saying he is against industry supplying vehicles and boosters. Not quite what he said. Here is what he said:

"That is not a "NASA plan"; it is the proposed budget from the White House. It will likely be revised by the Congress. I am for NASA doing either true Research, or doing forefront Exploration, with taxpayer $.

Ares/Orion is more of a Development program than a Research program, so I am not depressed to see it disappear. I am concerned to see NASA manned spaceflight disappear, since they provided world leadership in the 60s and part of the 70s. The result was America's universities being the leader in Science/Engineering PhDs.

Many American kids will be depressed by the thought that our accomplishments will not be continued and thus America will fall deeper away from our previous leadership in Engineering/Science/Math. I believe our future success depends on our ability to motivate our youth.

I would support a restructuring of goals and funding so NASA can be allowed to perform like the 60s on space Research and on Exploration. There is not a shred of evidence that the President sees any value in those goals."

I would add that I believe that NASA's leadership stretched a bit further than Rutan gives credit for, to the mid-1980s, with the development and early operation of the Shuttle.

Shuttle was new, high tech, world beating technology at the outset, whether we missed to goal of a mission every week and airline-like flight costs.

And the modular architecture of the space station, the modules, nodes, and racks, developed from 1986-88, was a new concept and very innovative, and was responsible for allowing station to survive and grow. Even today, station's architecture can be used as the basis for future planetary vehicles.

Since then, however, NASA has mainly been focused on flying in circles. Constellation was really no different and offered nothing new or innovative.

As Homer Hickam said, Garver needs to go.
This "plan" is a mess and it is only going to get worse.

Almost everyone in the recent hearings is expressing deep and serious reservations.

Mark my words...

Orion WILL survive this, and more.

'You're failing at tricking people into thinking you know what you're talking about.'

Ah, attacking the messenger, I see.

Thanks for letting us know there is apparently no worthwhile data or reasoning to back up your position.

'Here is what he said:'

Actually, that's a statement Burt released a week or so back, not the letter to the Senate (which is what's quoted in the WSJ article), which doesn't seem to be public yet. I've been looking for the Senate letter, with no luck - anyone know where it is?

PS: Props to Keith for posting the link to the WSJ article.

Vitter was just plain wrong.

He needs to stick to policy debates, not ad homs.

Besides, he's from Louisiana, so....

:)

This sort of thing is exactly why I so despise the whole political process. This sort of thing is a waste of good productive energy that could be better spent trying to grow our economy.

Sounds to me like some of his lobbyist friends fed him a story over 'business meals' and he fell for it hook, line and sinker. I wonder if he was smart enough to negotiate some quid pro quo for playing the patsy and poisoning the waters.

With the dollar values we're talking about it's not hard to understand why people are fighting so hard for a broken status quo. The public can read ATK's 10-Ks online at EDGAR; it's not hard to figure out how much they're getting/have gotten for the Constellation program. And they're not the only ones. I'd fight hard for that kind of money too. It can buy a lot of propaganda, though the internet proves that there are plenty of people willing to shill for free.

This new direction for NASA, one that encourages and supports the citizenry in its efforts to scale the high frontier, is probably the most exciting thing to come along since the advent of the personal computer back in the early 80s, and look what that enabled...

That so many with vested interests in the status quo are so vehemently, even poisonously against this new direction tells me that this is just the kind of change that is needed. The longer that NASA stays chained to its old prejudices and mindsets the worse off we'll all be. NASA working with American industry to open the space frontier to the citizenry is a lot more exciting to me than NASA designing a program for a small number of elite astronauts to travel to some arbitrary destination (probably Mars) so that we can fill in that box on the checklist. I'll take the former over the latter any day.

There is no question that the White House and NASA have done a poor job of rolling this out. It was dumped onto everyone with no real accompanying information. There is a great deal of very good stuff that they are now dribbling out that should have been stated up front. AW&ST had some interesting articles this week and Spaceflight Now does as well. This sort of information needs to reach the public to enable people to make informed judgments.

All the witch hunts, personal attacks and hysteria (both from Congress and on this web site) just distract people from the actual debate. Many fanatics have popped out woodwork to post here recently and they stand out like a sore thumb.

I have no problem with killing Constellation. Parts of the program will redoubtably live on. ULA, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are going to get the same chance to big of commercial crew transport as SpaceX and Orbital. If Lockheed-Martin believes that Orion is appropriate to bid than they'll do so. There is nothing stopping ANY of these companies (including ATK) from bidding their hardware developed for Constellation. If ATK thinks they can compete with ULA and SpaceX for a launcher than they should go for it.

Bolden was exactly right with regard to crew transport to the ISS... it ultimately doesn't matter how they got there or on what vehicle. I'm not saying we should just keep buying seats from the Russians but Ares/Orion, SpaceX/Dragon, Atlas/Dream Catcher, whatever. It doesn't matter.

One other thing... I respect Homer Hickam's opinions but I don't any reason they should carry more weight than others with NASA or industry experience. The man is a gifted writer with a great story but he was simply a mid-level engineer with NASA.

Well now, The BIG EASY is crying foul.

what a change of pace.

Completely predictable, like shooting fish in a barrel when hit in the face with change, who dat!

"It skips the tech transfer process, by putting technologies directly in the hands of industry."

uhmmmmmmm,ya must be a DC-over-theorizin-type that's never really worked in "industry"

new technology and designs are routinely patented by companies and their lawyers make a frickin fortune suing and countersuing each other over infringements, there's no generic "industry" ownership for a long long time

that's another issue that's a plus for the NASA run traditional way of doing things with contractors, the design and technology was typically owned by the government and NASA could replace contractors at will

As for Garver, she may have a more polished public persona, but in lots-o-ways she seems to be as delusional with her privatizing NASA plan as Griffin was with rocketizing solids.