Space Policy and Election 2012

"Nelson said the president should declare during the Florida conference that NASA's goal is to send humans to Mars." Okay... NASA crashed Galileo into Jupiter to avoid contaminating any of its moons that might contain life, yes? And it plans to do the same with Cassini to avoid contaminating any of Saturn's potentially life-bearing moons. And many if not most astrobiologists agree that there is a possibility that Mars once developed life. Some researchers even believe that the planet could host microbial life underground. Therefore... it is urgently important that we abandon plans to go back to the Moon and instead land bacteria-laden human beings on Mars as soon as possible. Can someone explain the logic of this to me?

I think they did a very poor job on rollout: everyone seems to have a different take on it. The only constant seems to be cancellation of Constellation/Orion. But perhaps that was what was intended. The unwillingness of Obama to demonstrate any more than titular support of Space Endeavors, while talking about postponement for 5 years to further education when the budget in question was no more than a fractional percentage point of the annual education bill, smacked of a determination to dump Space; never mind Constellation.
The ignoring of Augustine's recommendations was particularly telling. As was the apparent domination of interpretation by Garver instead of Bolden who seemed to not know what he was doing. or had been subtly bypassed by his supposed subordinate who incidentally completely lacks any professional qualifications or requisite experience for the post she now holds: a political appointment indeed and a pretty PC one at that. Death knell IMO.
Obama is going to have to do some fast talking April 15th...but then that's what he IS good at...

"Nelson said the president should declare during the Florida conference that NASA's goal is to send humans to Mars".

Big Deal. From the Bush VSE:

"Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations".

So the goal hasn't changed. Only moving from a vision that has an implementation (whether you agreed with it or not) and Congressional support to one that has neither.

Krispace:

had been subtly bypassed by his supposed subordinate who incidentally completely lacks any professional qualifications or requisite experience for the post she now holds: a political appointment indeed and a pretty PC one at that.

Yes, indeed. I am glad you brought that up, as I was waiting for an explicitly politics-oriented posting to point that out so I would not get yelled at for Off-Topic posts. But I recall, not so many years ago, a lot of people here wailing and gnashing of teeth about a Bush political appointee to NASA PAO who had the audacity to attempt to influence NASA's message to be more in line with the boss who sent him there. Gauging by the reaction to that appointment, it seemed as if it was the wholesale taking-over of NASA and its message by the religious right. And yet we hear absolutely nothing about the political appointee Garver, who many argue really holds the reigns of NASA's power.

So I ask: Which political appointee really has/had the larger opportunity to pollute NASA with political ideology, Garver or Deutsch? I think Garver has already done more damage in less than a year than Deutsch could have ever done if he were allowed to continue in his low-level PAO job. Hypocrisy seems to be the easiest thing to overlook as long as your political team is "winning" and holds power.

Obama is going to have to do some fast talking April 15th...but then that's what he IS good at...

Unfortunately (for Obama, fortunate for US citizens) we are on to the political machinations of the Teleprompter-in-Chief. The campaign is over, and the funny thing is that during the Health Care Summit, Obama was the one chastising McCain for "continued campaigning." Yet Obama thinks the POTUS job is just an extension of his campaign rhetoric: Show up and give a great speech, and people will follow me. Deeds, not words, Mr. President.

Didn't Bill Nelson have a talk with candidate Obama back when the candidate wanted to move a third of NASA's budget to the DoE?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/obama-pits-huma/

And wasn't it Bill Nelson who had a talk with then-candidate Obama that basically said the same thing as he said yesterday? If you lose Florida, you lose the election.

As for how it was rolled out, the whole thing was a mess, especially from a budgetary process point of view. Bush rolled out VSE in September and said the planning for what to do would take a year to formulate. Obama rolls out a cancellation in February and has no real plan on what will be done in FY11 (evidence by the spinning up of the 10 teams to look at what NASA should be doing).

Now Congress and the Administration are fighting... and that will never be a good thing for NASA. I'd be absolutely shocked if NASA had solid direction on what to do before FY12.

The political capital of this President is a critical factor in how much congress is going to play ball with him on NASA. Polls show that Obama has burned bridges with many of the independants of the American electorate about healthcare. These independants are the ones that were critical in electing and were his political capital.
And right now that capital is dwindling very fast.
Obviously he has not endeared himself to the space community. Even if you support his plan in full, the introduction was so seriously botched it has fatally damaged any chance it could pass unscathed. Though even properly introduced, I doubt it would pass unchanged.It didn't help he made statements during the campaign that he has walked away from now.

What an idiot! Hopefully he will LOOSE in 2012 and loose Congress in 2010! He is destroying this country from the inside!

Town hall huh?

Well is it going to be the usual special invite list and pre-approved questions? or do real people get to go and ask hard questions?

Keith, your right, one more flight would not make much sense. What I think would make sense is if the flight hardware were fully used. I think there are 4 ET's left. Retiring one shuttle and doing 2 flights per year will help reduce the gap, lessen our dependence on Russia for crew and supplies till commercial providers are ready and go further to outfitting the ISS into a world class lab.

If the goal is to preserve the workforce for 6 more months why does that require actually flying the thing? Do the astronauts really want the risk of flying another flight with no real mission? Do we wan to risk 1/3 of stock of Really Big Historical Artifacts for 6 months worth of wages?

I still like my suggestion: lets just take a few of the unspent billion from the stimulus package and give the displaced workers three years of full time salary as one lump sum payment.

FYI, Bigelow Aerospace is adveritisng for "professional astronauts to fill permanent positions":

http://tinyurl.com/yea82lb

Andrew

How does that help him. People want a future... The future was never shuttle, it was Constellation!
So, let's see, he's still going to tell people they have no future but an extra 6 months of employment. And he thinks this will start some sort of celebration for ONE LAUNCH?
If he wants any sort of good reception it had better involve Constellation or some sort of government built rocket to be launched at KSC.
Commercial = bad
1 shuttle mission = a joke

Folks, you're foaming at the mouth. Please stop until you have facts to work with. All I see on this page is purely partisan assertions, theories, and hyperventilation. You're a self-licking ice cream cone -- convincing each other that Obama is the antichrist while changing nobody else's opinions. This is a space blog, not a right-wing nutbag blog.

So stop stoking the rhetoric and go back to sorting facts from beliefs.

All that Obama will be doing is formally authorizing that the STS-133 LON vehicle (STS-335, OV-104) actually be launched to provide resupplies to ISS (via MPLM).

The SRBs will be stacked with the ET and orbiter fully processed and attached to it.

Better to launch it than have to spend the money to safely dispose of the SRB propellant.

This way it looks like he's throwing a bone to the workers when he'd have had to spend money any way to safe the SRBs.

Couldn't agree more Keith, if they extend the Shuttle one more flight it would be stupid, may as well go with Shuttle-C at that point, just to extend it and then cancel it is just a massive waste of taxpayer money.

Papa. I'm afraid you are wasting your time. Alas it would seem that a certain percentage of your fellow citizens, from my perspective, seem determined to be part of the problem and like Truthers and Birthers and a whole load of other ...er unstable personalities, simple facts like a Degree in Political Science and Economics followed by a Masters in Science, Technology and Public policy as well as previous tenure: "1998 to 2001, she served as the Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy and Plans for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Reporting directly to the NASA Administrator, she oversaw the analysis, development, and integration of NASA policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, the NASA Advisory Council, and the History Division. She served as a primary spokesperson for NASA. Prior to this appointment, Garver served as a Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and Special Assistant to the Administrator" (Wikipedia)
...count for nothing. (Yes Krispace March 10, 2010 2:03 AM; I'm looking at you!)

Alas for some reason that I just can't fathom (sarcasm) having a rational, eloquent and intelligent President cannot be tolerated by some of your fellow countrymen; the same sort of countrymen who are equally intimidated by seeing a woman in a position of power! It seems that all one has to say is: "Obama" or latterly "Garver" and then stand back back with large carboys to catch all the Vitriol. Perhaps we could go into the fertilizer business?

However I am confident that Ms. Garver has been in the political arena for such a sufficient time that simple name calling and disrespect is merely a clear indication that she must be doing something right!

If I remember correctly the Great American Public democratically voted for Change!
Thank goodness.

It would be nice to still have space shuttles operational just in case the commercial operators have trouble man-rating their vehicles.

And it would be nice to get the economies of Texas, California, and Florida going again since their a serious drag on the economic recovery of the rest of the country.

$3 billion a year to extend the space shuttle program is chump change and actually helps to grow our economy. $100 billion a year spent in Iraq is what's helping to destroy our economy.

Marcel F. Williams

Keith's note: The buzz at KSC ... is that President Obama ... will use that event to announce that he is authorizing one additional space shuttle mission after the four remaining flights currently on the shuttle manifest. ... The question I have to ask is why do this? ... Alas, no one has yet given me a reason to do this other than to keep people employed.  While it may be a humane thing to do now that Constellation won't be there with a safety net, this is not the way to try and shift paradigms.  Rather, it is a way to stall that shift.

The current proposed NASA 2011 budget request extends Shuttle operations into 2011 in a manner corresponding to Shuttle Scenario 1 from the Augustine Commission Report (see excerpt below).  Adding ONE more flight corresponds to Shuttle Scenario 2, which was the result of a finding by Sally Ride that there is just ONE external tank left at Michoud.  No more can be created without restarting the production line, which would correspond to Shuttle Scenario 3 and the bill being proposed by Senator Hutchinson.

Augustine Commission Report, Section 4.1.3 -- Shuttle Options

The Committee selected three possible Shuttle scenarios to consider for inclusion in the integrated options presented later in this report: (1) flying out the Shuttle manifest (at a prudent rate); (2) adding one flight to provide short-term support for the ISS; (3) and closing the gap by extending Shuttle to 2015 at a minimum flight rate.

Scenario 1:  Prudent Shuttle Fly-Out.  ... the current Shuttle schedule has little or no margin remaining.  Scenario 1 ... restores margin to the schedule ... and allocates funds in FY 2011 ... [because] the Committee believes it is likely that the remaining six flights on the manifest will stretch into the second quarter of 2011....

Scenario 2:  Short-Term Support for the ISS.  ... Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights.  ... One obvious question is: "Why add just one flight?"  Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not cost effective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks.  However, there is ONE spare external tank remaining in inventory....

Scenario 3:  Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate.  This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015.  ... Scenario 3 would require additional funding for Shuttle extension.  Assuming that many of the current fixed costs must be carried somewhere in the NASA budget, the relevant cost of this option is the marginal cost of flying the Shuttle.  There are two factors to consider in estimating this cost.  First, if the Shuttle extension is coupled with a strategy to develop a more directly Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle, as opposed to the Ares family, there would be synergy that takes maximum advantage of existing infrastructure, design and production capabilities.  Second, since the Shuttle would be available to carry crew to and from the ISS, there would be some savings because the U.S. would not need to purchase Russian Soyuz flights (the present plan).

Texas's economy is a drag on the rest of the nations'? Now THERE's an informed post. Texas has the world's 12th largest economy.

By my reckoning, Garver is a policy wonk and should stay out of decisions that require an appreciation of engineering e.g. what should NASA's mission be given its capabilities. I do not think it is wise to cancel Constellation on a hope and a prayer that something better will show up from research or space IPOs.

Also, several posters try to fan partisan flames. This is just more narrow thinking. For the record I am female and a registered democrat.

"Scenario 2: Short-Term Support for the ISS. ... Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights. ... One obvious question is: "Why add just one flight?" Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not cost effective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks. However, there is ONE spare external tank remaining in inventory...."

2.Short-term: the congressional elections coming up. The Democrats are likely to take a hammering in any case, but for Florida this might stave things off past then: desperate times...

"Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. ... Scenario 3 would require additional funding for Shuttle extension. Assuming that many of the current fixed costs must be carried somewhere in the NASA budget, the relevant cost of this option is the marginal cost of flying the Shuttle. There are two factors to consider in estimating this cost. First, if the Shuttle extension is coupled with a strategy to develop a more directly Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle, as opposed to the Ares family, there would be synergy that takes maximum advantage of existing infrastructure, design and production capabilities. Second, since the Shuttle would be available to carry crew to and from the ISS, there would be some savings because the U.S. would not need to purchase Russian Soyuz flights (the present plan)."

3. The most logical and potentially cheapest whilst ensuring & maintaining a U.S manned spaceflight capability until CommLEO flights, plus offering a substantial BEO capability plus continuity of work force: either @ NASA or moved over to the contractors taking over the facilities and workforce. But it is only logical if you don't want to kill NASA's manned space endeavors stone dead. I was convinced before Augustine and I am convinced that via "LORIGARV",it is still intended(unless it involves SPACE X exclusively), but disguised on the surface.

"...1998 to 2001, she served as the Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy and Plans for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Reporting directly to the NASA Administrator, she oversaw the analysis, development, and integration of NASA policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, the NASA Advisory Council, and the History Division...."
"...of countrymen who are equally intimidated by seeing a woman in a position of power..."

I shall be watching you too, brobof!

Administration is no indicator of qualifications in a technical organization. 1998-2001 eh? Critical years where bad technical and admin' decisions were made enabling successors to jump into bed with contractors and screw things up royally. Nor is gender any indicator: working both ways I might add. A male would have received the same criticism.
For example, NASA is shot through with people of that sort. The recently replaced Head of the Stennis facility was no more than a Bachelors/Masters - and those were in Civil engineering: hardly a qualification for a head of a Propulsion facility! Building foundations and sewers have only a titular connection with rocket propulsion. As The Economist would put it "jobs for the boys"...and now girls. BTWI hail from a country where GOOD women leaders are respected.
As for the POTUS, well I voted for him, and because he -in practice - has turned into nothing more than Bush Mk II, I wish now I'd voted for McCain; at least HE was honest. The current occupants' campaign being bankrolled up to the eyeballs by the Drug companies and HMO brigades...still, mistakes can be rectified in the voting booth!
Had the plan included NLS'92/DIRECT we could have had it all and kept within the current budget to boot. That's my primary criticism coupled, to the last short-term decision to add one more STS flight which accomplishes little: certainly in terms of the delay in US manned flights - merely to the ISS.
All it needs is SPACE X to be another two years behind - that it is with the Falcon 9/Dragon test flights - with actual operational flights, and we'll be exactly where we were with The Stick and other abominations. BTW has anyone noted there have been no more commercial flights by Space X since the single on in what, September'09, and no future ones mentioned on the website manifest either...looks like the customers have drifted away...

"Second, since the Shuttle would be available to carry crew to and from the ISS, there would be some savings because the U.S. would not need to purchase Russian Soyuz flights (the present plan)."

Actually it would because of the six-month limitation of Astro/Cosmo-naut tours. If STS launches are reduced in frequency it will cause crew problems since the Crew manifest is now six, so scheduling is liable to be complicated. More Soyuz flights will still be needed. Then of course, there's the question of rescue...

@krispace

"BTW has anyone noted there have been no more commercial flights by Space X since the single on in what, September'09, and no future ones mentioned on the website manifest either"

Come on, dont you know yet, you arent allowed to suggest that SpaceX is less than perfect on this site. If you do, you are called a "teabagger", "Ares I hugger", "Constellation hugger", "Right wing loon" and an endless list of names that I have read over the last 6 weeks since the budget was announced.

For the record, Spacex Falcon 1 last launched in July 2009. In 4 years since their maiden launch of the Falcon 1 (March 2006), they have precisely 5 launch attempts and precisely two successes. They had nearly a year between almost every launch (except 3 & 4 - quick turn around there). For the record, Falcon 1 is a puny little rocket with a very small payload mass to orbit.

But this is the company all the fanboys claim will launch humans by 2013. Don't get me wrong I like what SpaceX is doing and I respect what they are doing, but they are 2 years behind on the cargo version of the Falcon 9. They have not launched a Dragon/Falcon 9 yet. Why? Because this business is hard. The fanatical belief by some on here that SpaceX will be launching humans by 2013 is so far beyond absurd it may be entering the realm of dementia. The Falcon 9 has an advertised 23,000 lb mass to LEO from the cape. That is for a regular launch from the cape with an inclination of 28.5. Going to the station orbit you lose performance. This is a fact. ISS is at 51.6 inclination. A polar launch from the cape gets you 18,000 pounds to LEO. So figure a launch to ISS is somewhere around 21,000 lbs. Factor in adding some sort of launch escape system, redundancy, consumables (water, breathing air, food) and 7 crew members and I do not believe the Falcon 9 can make it into orbit. Weight just creeping up higher and higher. If it cant get the performance, than you need the Falcon 9 Heavy to get to ISS - another vehicle that has not launched yet. Maybe a 2 man crew on a Falcon 9? Ares I performance is what has lead to the constant changes to Orion's design and reduction in crew from 6 to 4.

I think SpaceX will get there, just not at the ridiculous time frame claimed.

And to go along with Krispace - because of all the attacks about how people who are not 100% behind the "plan" are Bush lovers, and all the other names I mentioned earlier, I say this. I am a democrat and have never voted for a Republican for Senate, House or President. I did not vote for Obama for several reasons, one being that I predicted this travesty was coming 2 years ago. (another was his vast lack of experience). I always argued that Bush was not qualified to be President because he had no international politics experience and actually very little experience at the national level. Obama's experience makes Bush look like a veteran politician (when he first ran for prez) No, I did not vote for McCain either, but I did vote.

I will also point out, that I do not place the blame of this mess solely at Obama's feet. I have been arguing for years now that the previous Administration was not funding the architecture anywhere near adequately and not near what they said they would. I hold Bush and Congress accountable for this. However, for some reason this gives Obama a free pass with his supportors. They say its not his fault, it's Bush's fault. But if he cared, he could have fixed the budgetary problem instead of throwing everything out. And dont give me the b.s. that we cant afford it, if we can afford to give GM $33 billion. Or we can give $130 billion in stimulus funds to Education. We can afford to increase NASAs budget by $5 billion a year, and we must afford it. I am all for extending station, I am for pursuing commercial launch initiatives, I am for unmanned probes but I am also fro manned exploration. I dont have this sick sadistic desirte of others on here to cut everybody's budget, I want to do it all and I want it all to be funded adequately. I dont believe it will ever happen, but I think it SHOULD.

For all those who think the new budget will lead to job creation? Good luck with that. You need to have contract bids before you can have jobs and the proposal and award process takes a long long time. It will be 2012 before you can even spend any of the (Non-commercial) budget. It will be 2014 before any company actually wins a contract to produce something (provided somebody comes up with SOMETHING for someone to produce), and that is when they will start hiring. The little guys arent going to hire the tens of thousands of workers that will be laid off at the end of this fiscal year (some estimates have 30,000 direct jobs, not counting impact to communities are at risk).

One final thing, after 6 weeks, of all the people I have spoken to at various centers, with Constellation, Orion, Ares, Shuttle and ISS, not one has had a positive reaction to this plan. So I still maintain that a large majority of the people who are so ardently behind this plan on this site are the vocal minority who fall into two categories: those who do not now and never have worked in human space flight and those that are Obama supporters no matter what he does. The numbers here do not add up to what I see and hear every day.

Gotta laugh at the notion that a Shuttle flight is cheaper than a Soyuz flight...

While this may be a political win for the next few months (and possibly into November), this will end up diverting yet another pot of money from whatever we want to do (CX, the new path) into the Shuttle.

Aren't shuttle flights on the order of a billion dollars a launch?

One final thing, after 6 weeks, of all the people I have spoken to at various centers, with Constellation, Orion, Ares, Shuttle and ISS, not one has had a positive reaction to this plan.

If you talked to anyone whose employment was connected F-22 aircraft production, I think you'd find that nary a one has had a positive reaction to F-22 program termnination.

Therefore, following your logic, America must re-start production of F-22 fighter planes.

Don't you agree?

"It would be nice to still have space shuttles operational just in case the commercial operators have trouble man-rating their vehicles."

The shuttle workforce costs $200M a month. So we keep them hanging around for a couple of years (likely three, at minimum, until any commercial man-rated system is available), that's like $7.5B! What are you going to cut in NASA to find that money?

Great post - particularly the comments about the timeline. Your estimates (2012 before NASA gets a new direction, even more time to get contractors selected and contracts signed) seem right on to me.

This isn't Apollo anymore, and it's not just flight risks NASA is averse to - nobody wants to take contracting risks either. The kind of things that happened all the time in Apollo (companies starting work on a handshake) rarely happen now - and after the flak NASA is getting for the less-than-concrete Constellation contracts, they will be even less likely to want to run that risk in the future.

Just as engineers should not dictate policy? But then do you not end up with a schitzoid organisation?
What is needed (IMHO) is a really good corpus callosum so as to temper engineering ambitions with political reality and political ambitions with engineering reality.

However the topic is a course change for NASA. A political/policy course change. This is not just a new rocket; it is a new way of doing things! One can but hope that Bolden and Garver are up to the task and I would urge that their efforts be supported rather than second guessed and sabotaged. Under this current Administration NASA will be radically changed but at least it will survive! Unless your Congress mucks everything up with space-pork!

As to Cx: having listened to the deliberations of the HSF Committee I can only agree with their recommendation that the POR was not going to deliver either on schedule or budget and that Commercial, if given the chance, could provide America with a quicker return to HSF. With a variety of providers.

It is a bold experiment in commercialisation and should be applauded as such, leaving NASA to build the Inter-Planetary Super-Highway.

@Krispace "Yoo-hoo" *waves* Are you now implying that Lori is responsible for everything that has happened to NASA since? You seem to be!

However I would agree with you that NASA is no longer a technical organisation. It is instead: a bloated governmental bureaucracy that needs to be returned to a first rate technical organisation. One that is capable of building the Inter-Planetary Super-Highway.

With regard to honest politicians. I have absolutely no right to comment on your system. However we have a saying over here: that the only person ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes.
caveat suffragator

"Therefore, following your logic, America must re-start production of F-22 fighter planes."

Well the F-35 is not doing too well.

We are not going to be left with a 'tough body' rather a tabula rasa.

@ David D

"If you talked to anyone whose employment was connected F-22 aircraft production, I think you'd find that nary a one has had a positive reaction to F-22 program termnination.

Therefore, following your logic, America must re-start production of F-22 fighter planes.

Don't you agree?"

No, actually I dont agree. I actually think that is an awful analogy. There are 187 F-22s built and in service, what was terminated was the building of 56 more. But regardless, the plane will still be flying for years and years.

A much better analogy would have been if you said "If you talked to anyone whose employment was connected F-22, F-35, F-117A, and the B-2 aircraft production, and ALL of those programs were killed except F-35, I think you'd find that nary a one has had a positive reaction to F-22, F-117A AND B-2 program termnination." Oh and they wouldnt have to only be terminated, all of the F-22s, F-117As and B-2s would have to be mothballed to, to make the story closer and any aircraft in development would be cancelled until game changing technologies could be found.

BTW, there are many who disagree with the decision to terminate production of F-22s. The F-35 does not have the same mission parameters or capabilities as an F-22. F-22s are used to establish air superiority and are also stealth aircraft. F-35s are more of a multi-purpose fighter which was designed to be all things for everybody, which means its not going to be the best at anything. Dont really feel like getting in to that discussion though, because I dont know enough about it, and its not why I am here anyway.

But you did coincidentally highlight something, that the President isnt only targeting the "space" in aerospace, he is targeting the "aero" too. Or maybe it is just Lockheed Martin (Orion, F-22, VH-71 also known as the Presidential Helicopter... ok so I dont really have issue with that last one) that he has a grudge against? All were cancelled by Obama.

@brobof

"As to Cx: having listened to the deliberations of the HSF Committee I can only agree with their recommendation that the POR was not going to deliver either on schedule or budget and that Commercial, if given the chance, could provide America with a quicker return to HSF. With a variety of providers. "

That's funny because the HSF Committee did not make recommendations at all they provided options (all of which were ignored). They also did not say commercial could provide America with a quicker return to spaceflight, they said commercial should be pursued in addition to and they said Cx could not succeed on its existing budget, but that if you increased the budget by $3 billion a year (which is where it was supposed to be anyway) then it could succeed.

Indeed and why not, since HSF within NASA is about to undergo a major change with the ending of the shuttle era: hit the reset button. It seems to work on computers! Whilst it is a *crime* that so many hardworking Americans 'on the shop floor' will lose their employment whilst those responsible for the current disconnect float off on management contracts and tenured positions.

[Singing] "It's the same the whole world over..."

@ Spaceboy Its Hilarious! Even Augustine stumbled over the word at a presser, IIRC. When whittling down some of Dr E. Crawley's 2000 odd options down to five and some would say three; is it not a "recommendation" that some options are not tenable and that some are worth pursuing?

To return to the substantive point:
"FINDINGS ON ORION AND ARES I

Orion: The Orion is intended to be a capable crew exploration vehicle, and the current Orion design will be acceptable for a wide variety of tasks in the human exploration of space. The current development is under considerable stress associated with schedule and weight margins. The primary long-term concern of the Committee is the recurring cost of the system.

Ares I: Ares I is intended to be a high reliability launcher. When combined with the Orion and its launch escape system, it is expected to serve as a crew transporter with very high ascent safety. The Ares I is currently dealing with technical problems of a character not remarkable in the design of a complex system – problems that should be resolvable with commensurate cost and schedule impacts. Its ultimate utility is diminished by schedule delays, which cause a mismatch with the programs it is intended to serve."

"Intended" Damning with faint praise springs to mind! And an: "Oh so polite" refutation of the Simple and Soon.

As to commercial, I would draw your attention to "5.3.2: Alternatives to Government-Provided Crew Access to Low-Earth Orbit." et seq
A careful rereading will show you just how subtle President Obama's political manoeuvrings have been.

"Rook takes Queen at e7"

So what's to sing about? Destruction makes you happy? You have no clue how the system works. The knowledge of those who make it happen is lost; there are no other contracts to pick up the slack. And tenured civil servants get to sit around and play R&D for a while. Sure, a lot is going to come out of that. Finally, you will be left with *nothing* but apparently that's what you wanted all along.