Bolden Update Today

Any way for contractors to listen in?

Somethings up.

Communications is UP!

I dunno what he's planning to say this time, but get the feeling that somebody influential out there in cyberspace is listening.

If this article's analysis were applied to NASA HSF space commercial/privatization, then it's the strongest No Go case that's been offered yet, based on the math no less:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/strange-attractors-on-par_b_554440.html

(it's "do the math" plus "quite frankly we've been there", LoL!)

so, somebody get real with the POR pos no go case that was equally as bad

the article also provides the strongest case for the pro shuttle extension crowd too

Nothing is "up", Wednesday is Innovation Day at JSC where we can walk around all the booths and tell each other how "Innovating and Game Changing" we are. Just more of the same party line/talking points.

Tomorrow is "Innovation Day" at JSC. There are a bunch of displays, demos, and "rap sessions" (their words, not mine) on site at JSC. He is going to speak for 15 minutes before that starts. So I assume he will say a few words about innovation and "game changing technologies", he is not going to make any grand announcements or say anything new and will probably barely mention the program. Nothing new can be said in 15 minutes.

Local Houston stations are full of doom and gloom

Robert G. oler

Thanks folks, the rumor mill is out of control. It always is in times like this. Pretty nasty rumor though. Still might be true.

Right now, I'd be a lot more worried about whatever's going through the minds of the members of the Congressional deficit commission. See: . Either taxes will go up, federal spending will drop, or both, & NASA will have to fight twice as hard to get half as much.

Nah, nothing's "up". This is just another attempt to sell the Obama/Holdren/Whoever plan to the staff who are going to be decimated as a result. Expect there to be tears and declarations of love.

I honestly do not envy him the responsibility of having to impliment this scheme. It might even, in the long run, turn out to be for the good of NASA. However, selling massive layoffs and downscaling of the administration's direct activities (as opposed to those carried out by vendors) is difficult at best. If there had been some attempt communication and consensus rather than just top-down imposition, so many of these problems could have been at least mitigated if not avoided.

Probably Bolden will well up some tears (again) and indicates he feels our pain. Thanks.

Local Station Channel 11 stated last night he was here to announce bad news for the Orion contractors...massive layoffs...due to the termination liability issue. Letters went out last week to the contractors regarding termination of the program.

Meanwhile...we can 'stand down' for the day and have "Innovation Day". WHY?? Obama has killed any reason for innovation!

Reminds me of the old IBM commercials were companies are all focused on the image of innovation because that's the cool new buzz word instead of actually going out and doing it. These day long activities are always a waste of time.

lots of crying and he felt our pain. but basically two things:

NASA is a healthy camel and Constellation is the still born calf that needs to be removed so that the camel can live. (some story from Afghanistan)

also a lot of folks felt he pretty much said, stop whining and leaking stuff to the media/congress and tow the company line with the new direction.

I admit I didn't get to hear the whole speech or all the Q&A so I might have missed some of the inspiring and innovative parts.

Its a real shame what Obama has done to this nation. NASA is just the tip of the iceberg and Obama's mission is to destroy this country from the inside out. Look at history and it shows that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez all shared he same philosophy. It all started with taking over the banks, the automobile industry, destroying NASA and shoving the health care bill down our throats. We're in a crisis folks and if we don't wake up all of it wont be just NASA that is destroyed. We will be welcomed into the new USSR (United States Socialist Republic)

Its a real shame what Obama has done to this nation. NASA is just the tip of the iceberg and Obama's mission is to destroy this country from the inside out. Look at history and it shows that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez all shared he same philosophy. It all started with taking over the banks, the automobile industry, destroying NASA and shoving the health care bill down our throats. We're in a crisis folks and if we don't wake up all of it wont be just NASA that is destroyed. We will be welcomed into the new USSR (United States Socialist Republic)

"To make this dream a reality, we must identify quicker and less costly ways to develop new launch systems. We must speed the acquisition process so it doesn't take a decade to make a new system operational." Bolden

Delaying a decision on developing a heavy lift vehicle until 2015 almost ensures that the deployment of an HLV will take more than a decade. So Bolden needs to practice what he preaches by choosing an HLV now.

Marcel F. Williams

OK, so President Obama's long-term goal is to send people to Mars, which I think was the last administration's goal as well. It would seem his revised 2011 budget proposes a Flexible Path where we attempt an asteroid flyby (landing?) in 2025. At a recent presentation, I heard one NASA official suggest that there are two pieces of the puzzle to to Mars (and two option):
1) learn to live on another world (the Moon) first, then gain weeks/months living in deep space (by a crewed asteroid flyby). Then you've got both deep space and habitat experience to move onto Mars. OR:
2) have a crewed asteroid flyby first and then a lunar habitat.

I don't think we should abandon some sort of Moon base. Even in this recession, NASA is it a critical juncture and even more funds should to provided so it can achieve a crewed lunar base. The justification would be that the technology developed would benefit life on Earth, just as the technology needed for an asteroid flyby would. Other nations aren't abandoning their lunar aspirations. We need to explore the Moon's unvisited regions just as well as we need to explore Mars.

Uh, you seem to implicating that Obama is some sort communist. The merit (or lack there of) of that statement aside, you do realize that Stalin's USSR had a pretty robust space program, right? And that the commercial crew plan actually *reduces* government involvement?

You're off-topic, and wildly exaggerating. Obama is not "destroying this country from the inside", he's doing what he thinks is best for the country (and NASA). The fact that you disagree with his choices doesn't make them evil. Seen from the political center, he's making thoughtful and sensible choices, and then mostly failing to make a sales pitch for them. And he hasn't "[taken] over the banks, the automobile industry," in fact specifically chose not to. Calm down, focus on facts, and stop listening to talk radio. You'll still have your good 'ol USA when he leaves office.

Yup, these are pretty much the variations in HSF option 5B (with the "Moon after FlexPath" variation).

Okay, then start development on a heavy lift launch vehicle now. Their have been dozens of studies done. Everyone knows what it'll look like. Get it done.

You know what I think gets a lot of people about the whole Constellation cancellation? Vehicles and infrastructure were being built. Every previous plan except for X-33 existed firmly in the realm of paper and computer renderings. Most other space programs around the world,similarly, are mired in the muck of mock-ups and computer art.

With Constellation, for its many problems, tangible progress was occurring.

But sure enough. Here we are, starting over yet again. There are platitudes about Heavy Lift Launch vehicles (I'll believe it when I see it lift off at this point), VASMIR (we'll see it on a flagship=class probe, but never a manned vehicle for whatever unambitious reason comes up), and "learning to live in space" (which is about as exciting to the public as spiders making webs in microgravity).

You know what the big joke of this "new vision" is? Let's say all that constellation money is funneled into 50 independent research projects designed to help man get to and live on Mars. How does it get all tied together in the end? Is someone just going to call Chang-Diaz, ask for a VASMIR engine and bolt it onto habitation module made by some other group?

And for Christ's sake. Save some money. Fire the public out reach office and let some private marketing firm filled with competent people take over. 20 years of "educating" and "inspiring the next generation of explorers the way only NASA can" has amounted to precisely zero tangible benefit.

"If we flounder, it is unlikely we will have a similar opportunity in our lifetimes. America will lose its leadership in technological innovation and human spaceflight."

Sorry Charlie, but you already floundered and gave up our leadership when you endorsed Obama's plan.

The Houston news stations last night indicated that we'd get a big announcement today, but it did not happen.

The moral of the camel story was that once the leader makes a decision, then the subordinate has no choice but to go with that decisions, and to take it on faith that everything will work out for the best, and move forward.

The problem with this today is the lack of common sense or logic on several of the big decisions that have been made with no cogent explanation, such as:

- what is this new lightweight Orion for ? the stated need is ridiculous, for as long as US crew fly to ISS on a Soyuz, there is no need to return on anything but the Soyuz. Neither Bolden nor Obama have offered any sensible argument for this decision.

- why, if ISS is being continued, and another US manned vehicle will not be available for a few years, can Shuttle NOT be continued on a minimum flight rate, minimal expense basis? The explanation that its because the other guy, Bush, did it, makes no sense since Bush also was terminating ISS but Obama changed that decision. There is no logic in this plan and neither Bolden nor Obama have offered a good explanation.

(BTW, Bolden's negative words today about the Bush Administration was surprising, coming as it did from Charlie. Usually he doesn't bad mouth anyone. Obama may only be there for another 2 years so angering anyone is not a wise move.)

- why is a decision on heavy lift configuration being deferred to 2015 ? What game changing information will we learn in the next 5 years that makes us unwilling to commit today? A commitment today may make a lot of sense if the decision is to go with Shuttle derived. If we were to go with SHuttle derived and that decision is not made for another five years, then Obama and Bolden have probably wasted tens of billions of dollars and made the 2015 start-up difficult. Neither Bolden nor Obama have offered a reasonable explanation.

The other thing that worries me, based on Bolden's comments today, is that he said there are a series of tiger teams out putting the plan together. We've heard little or nothing about them. Who is on the teams ? I know that a couple of the lead people for one principal spacecraft system, and between us we covered Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, NASA-Mir and ISS; we sat together today for Bolden's talk. We all looked at one another and asked if anyone knew who was covering our system. No one had heard anything.

"he's making thoughtful and sensible choices"

Canceling a program without an alternate plan in place is not thoughtful nor sensible. Ideas about R&D and future things we could do are not a plan.

I did not see his speech so I cannot comment on that. But this line is interesting from his editorial.

"And we must work diligently with the commercial sector to help them succeed at providing safe, reliable, redundant access to low-Earth orbit while NASA develops futuristic capabilities to reach deep space."

What does he mean by redundant access to low Earth orbit? Does that mean more than 1 certified commercial launch vehicle or does that mean a backup to a government launch vehicle? Interesting new terminology.

Delaying a decision on developing a heavy lift vehicle until 2015 almost ensures that the deployment of an HLV will take more than a decade. So Bolden needs to practice what he preaches by choosing an HLV now.

Marcel F. Williams ..

actually of all the decisions in this policy I think that this is the most enlightened decision of all.

If we were to start an HLV today...what would be its lift, what would be the cost, what would be the market for it...

none of those things are known right now.

think of it this way. Not a single NASA booster (Saturn/Shuttle) has ever had a use other then NASA. To be affordable an HLV has to break that mold.

Robert G. Oler

The moral of the camel story was that once the leader makes a decision, then the subordinate has no choice but to go with that decisions, and to take it on faith that everything will work out for the best, and move forward.

But even in the camel story Bolden said there was a discussion first and they discussed the rationale and then made the appropriate decision, and that everyone down to the point man got a vote.

Bolden and the others at the top of HSF would do well to take a look at the organizational structure of HSF with an eye towards figuring out what went wrong with Constellation and the other current programs that made them so expensive and so long and drawn out.

Do they have personnel problems ? Organizational problems ? Bolden telling the audience that things need to change is not going to do it. He needs to make some changes.

The approach to systems management during definition and development is the chief fix required in my view. The systems management approach was what many Apollo veterans credit with having made Apollo the success that it was. It was a very decentralized management approach in which individual relatively small teams each had responsibility for some small segment of the vehicle. The teams were located throughout the HSF organization; they were not all resident in a single program or project office.

The systems management approach is what Shuttle and ISS both tried to dismantle over the last 12-15 years. I'm convinced that the lack of a strong systems management approach is one reason why Constellation got into trouble.

The fact that no Constellation managers had any systems management experience is probably the paramount reason.

Bolden would do well to avoid going to the existing top management in Space Operations for advice. He said during both presentations that this is usually where he goes, specifically mentioning today both Gerstenmaier and Wayne Hale. Gerstenmaier who never working in engineering or development, dismantled the sytems engineering and subsystem manager structure about a dozen years ago.

Hale, Hanley and the others from operations have never worked a systems approach and neither has Geyer whose only serious experience is the ISS program.

ISS is not a good example if you want a reasonably fast moving, cost effective program, not encumbered by NASA bureaucratic processes.

Bolden mentioned tiger teams. If these teams are figuring out what needs to be done, then a primary mission for those teams now is laying out a plan so that people across the "program" can envision what they need to start designing. If Bolden's tiger teams do not include experienced systems specialists looking at top level requirements and systems configurations for specific systems, then he is already off to a bad start on the new plan.

Its about time these guys at the top take a look
at what they are doing (wrong). Maybe when they figure it out they can correct the situation.

Son, please quit drinking the kool-aid...it's not good for you health.

Defend Obama's speech. Tell us concrete facts as to why his is preferable over Constellation. Tell us the name of the ill defined program. Surely if it's "well defined" the program would have a name wouldn't it?

I have yet to see any of you supporters of Obama make concrete facts in support of his speech and Powerpoint program. You just nitpick at the edges of everyone else's opposition to it, insulting or putting down anyone who opposes it, but never offer any specifics of your own.

Either contribute and convince us the merits of the "program" unlike Obama or Bolden has done so far, or go away and quit cluttering up this honest debate for our nation's Human Space Flight future.

Sheesh!

Here's the elevator version:
Civil servants, fall in line and salute.
Contractors, we feel your pain.

If Bolden's speech today was to inspire the workers, why did he not mention the new plans to continue Orion as a CRV? Wouldn't that be something positive to bring up? Doesn't it seem odd that he chose not to even mention it???

I missed the speech today because I was busy trying to get some work done, but from the chatter I heard in the halls it sounds like it was sort of: The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Go Oreon! Viva la resistance!

"Let's say all that constellation money is funneled into 50 independent research projects designed to help man get to and live on Mars. How does it get all tied together in the end? Is someone just going to call Chang-Diaz, ask for a VASMIR engine and bolt it onto habitation module made by some other group?"

Actually, yes. Which is nothing new. During Apollo, the people who built and designed the lunar lander were not the same people who built and designed the command module who were not the same people who built the Saturn V. I'm not really sure how else you would do it.

Exactly! One of the single craziest pieces of engineering in CxP was choosing the launchers before the payloads! You work on understanding the requirements of the new in-space systems first, and, from there, you choose, and engineer, launchers to meet those requirements.

No more amazing shrinking Orion!

Defend Obama's speech. Tell us concrete facts as to why his is preferable over Constellation.

Rocketman wrote:

My reply:
sure. Obama's plan gets rid of an unsustainable program that has no relation to the future of The Republic and has little or no public support outside of the usual space groupies.

Obama's plan gets rid of the program mentality (ie programs that stretch for decades) and instead focuses "NACA like" on technologies which will improve the economy and also will allow future exploration programs to be done "cheaper" and more robust.

Obama's plan develops the foundation of commercial access to orbit...and allows commercial spaceflight a chance where before it has had none.

The only thing Constellation had to offer was someday maybe a few NASA astronauts would stand on the Moon...two decades from now

Robert G. Oler

Mr. Oler,

Obama's program has no specifics and I really don't see you listing any except "buzz" words.

Obama's elimination of Constellation with no replacement in the future is harmful to our Republic and cedes exploration and leadership to other nations while putting ours into decline.

Commercial access to orbit, that is manned commercial access to orbit is in it's infancy as was NASA over 50 years ago. It's like firing all the major league baseball players and tearing down the stadiums, manufactoring plants that make the balls, bases, helmets, etc and telling some little kid in little league to rebuild it all. And, then tell the world that this kid will do it before Constellation would have which is crap.

Constellation offered man LIVING on the Moon by 2019, while Obama thinks maybe, sort of, might circle some asteroid for a couple orbits 15 years or longer from now.

How long before you think Obama will cut all this funding for "research" and give it to his base, the welfare crowd? Before or after the 2012 elections? The salary of one aerospace worker would fund 4 welfare voters now wouldn't it?

Mr. Oler, you do not make your case very well. I am sorry Sir.

If I may interject I believe it's called Constellation, you know Mars by way of the Moon, Asteroids, Mars Orbit (more Asteroids) and finally Mars surface. What it isn't is "Apollo on Steroids." What it isn't is an unaffordable BFR. What it is, is the first steps to developing a sustainable Interplanetary SuperHighway to Nowhere (and Everywhere!) Assuming partisan politics, old style protectionism, and conservative thinking don't destroy NASA's last chance to GET IT RIGHT!

How about this Rocketman: 1999 AO10 is roughly 2 olympic pools worth of 'stuff' ~5000 tns of raw materials already in situ. If we are lucky it may be pure platinum or if we are very very lucky 10% water! With enough Diaz Oomph! we may even get it into lunar orbit. But there are plenty of other chunks and lumps out there. There may be pebbles at the L Points big enough for a teeny weeny flag! There may even be a boulder big enough for a bootprint!

There may be about 1.2 km^3 of water on the Moon. However there are many more NEAs: "As of February 5, 2009, 6,696 near-Earth asteroids are known, ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed)"
(wikifact)
Islands in Space
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Neo-chart.png
Now all we need is a waʻa kaulua!

We don't have Kool Aid over here! Will Irn Bru do?
"Made in Scotland from girders"

Once again tou trot out the "operations people are the problem". The real problem is that NASA doesn't develop well rounded leaders who have both operations and systems development experience.

"Hale, Hanley and the others from operations have never worked a systems approach and neither has Geyer whose only serious experience is the ISS program."

Neither has anybody else in NASA, from any other center or directorate, at the size and complexity of a major aerospace program so stop blaming them. And given that ISS is the only major development program NASA has done in the last 25 years where else did you expect M. Geyer to get his expereince from? Go look at the experience and education requirements that DOD has for any program manager for a program the size of Constellation and who inside NASA could meet those requirements.

In fact I would argue that it is the "systems specialists" that have made ISS such a nightmare to operate since they are so focused on cool solutions and being on the technological edge that they completely forgot about makeing it easy and low cost to operate. The Regen ECLSS system is a classic example.

Unfortunately, this is not about technology, engineering, science, aeronautics, or anything that Bolden said or didn't say. It is about politics. Politics which is forcing this country into second rate status as a nation. NASA is just a part of this effort. If you think about it there are only two federal agencies which have EVER achieved anything historical, NASA and the United States Military. Demeaning our country with apologies, wasteful useless spending into bankruptcy, transfering power from the legislative branch to the executive branch of government, and putting our space program adrift are all part of the political plan. This will only change when the American people wake up. Hopefully that will be sooner than later and NASA can move ahead.

Sorry Warp but Orion is defintly shrinking way more than it ever did previously. The avionics system is going to be gutted as is all the other internal systems not needed for the couple hour trip back to earth. Won't be much left to build on if NASA is serious about using it as a basis for BEO missions and if they do decide to use it they will have to repeat all the work that has been going on for the last 3 years.

Sounds like Bolden and NASA need to start getting some of their people, particularly the senior managers, trained appropriately. That would be a worthwhile, potentially a valuable change.

You can read my past posts and see what I have said in favor of it. I'm not going to repeat it all here. I've said it's a gamble to try to salvage something for HSF, and worth the risk since CxP got off the rails.

I deny that I have ever insulted anyone for opposing the plan thoughtfully. I have only insulted people for foaming at the mouth and tossing political hand grenades and slogans.

Merchant 7 may not impress you, but they're not nothing. The key idea is that a vertically integrated commercial HSF industry will be able to provide crew launch services at lower per-seat cost than a NASA-led patch-work quilt of companies. Obama's gambling that this will come to fruition fast enough. It could happen. By contrast, CxP was still steaming toward a late first launch and high development and operational costs, plus shutting down ISS in 2015. Against that scenario, I'd say commercial is worth the gamble, and it's the right direction for the next 50 years. That to me is as thoughtful and sensible as possible in what amounted to a crisis.

Excellent observation! From your perspective can you compare and contrast the military systems development process to NASAs? Does it reflect on a civilian vs. military relationship with Congress or what? What is the fundamental differentiator?

Note that the major contractors are in both arenas. It makes me think that the contractors know better and are just taking NASA for a ride.

It makes me wonder too if we should just burn NASA HSF down and turn it over to the AF and the Navy. Geeze, I can't believe I just thought that. Heresy!!

Where's Steidle now a days and what's he think about the current situation? Keith?

You may want to read this:
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGB59L9U7AE.html

I for one totally support Obama and Bolden on NASA's new direction. The future of NASA is in-space propulsion, and the guys working on this stuff have been pushed aside for years and rarely got adequate funding. If we're really serious about going to Mars, or even back to the moon, it's clear that the most cost-effective means of doing so is with constant acceleration, and the proper attention is finally there to change the way things are done. I think the president see this very clearly, but the majority of naysayers just don't know that there is a much smarter way of traveling through space. Too many people are stuck in an Apollo mentality.

I'll try to keep this short ( I have been thinking about this very issue for the last 10 years). The actual process is basically the same but the culture and the experience of the people are vastly different.

First is experience. DOD buys and develops way more vehicles then NASA does and so therefore is able to build up a cadre of acquisition professionals, both uniformed and civilian, that have the experience to know what is realitically achievable and what is not. Air Force acquisition officers often have as much as 25 years of direct techncial development and acquisition experience. Navy acquisition officers have a little less due to the requirement that they be qualified line officers (aviators, ship drivers, etc.)before becoming development specialists. NASA runs a development program once every 20 to 30 years and has no way of developing that experience.

Also because of bad development experiences in the 70's and 80's the Defense Workforce Acquistion Improvement Act (DAWIA) was passed that layed down stringent experience and educational requirements for all levels of the workforce. Previously it was just assumed that any officer with years of military expperience could run an acquistion program but DOD's experience had proved that false. NASA provides little to no formal acquistion training that I am aware of and certaintly not at the highest levels (like the Industrial College of the Armed Forces)that are required for major programs.

"Note that the major contractors are in both arenas. It makes me think that the contractors know better and are just taking NASA for a ride."

There is some tuth to that statement. One of me graduate school professors, who had consulted for many contractors, told me that the aerospace companies new that the Air Force had the most savy and experienced acquisition people and so they put their best people on Air Force projects because they new they had to deliver and the couldn't BS their way around development problems. With the Navy the new they could make promises to accelerate schedules and make up delays that they couln't keep to keep the customer happy and the customer would buy it because they didn't have enough experience to know the promises were unrealistic. I am sure a similar thing happens with NASA versus DOD space programs with the DOD getting the better engineers and developers that the contractor has.

Second is culture. Despite what many think NASA does not have an operational culture. I would characterize it as a science or technology culture that is focused on the short term solution to the problem du jour and cool new technology. Because of that NASA has little to no strategic plan about how it goes about it's mission. Instead it is focused on one off projects. Go to the moon, go to an asteriod, orbit Mars. Because of that it doesn't properly plan for, initiate and sustain programs to develop generic capabilities when they are needed so you can do any BEO mission that might be assigned. Look at the F-22 and F-35 programs. These projects took 10-15 years to develop (DOD lesson learned data base shows 15 years as the average)and you can't convince me that a human spacecraft is less complex. Yet NASA and commercial contractors promise stuff in 3 years or 5 years. Can't be done. But we try, cut corners, and end up doing a bad job and having to slip the schedule which makes the program look over budget and incompetent. In DOD we know it takes 15 years to go from program start to IOC. So as soon as a new vehicle becomes operational we started planning and developing it's replacement or upgrade. That way you can run a proper development program and do the job right. Mr. Bolden asking for new ways of developing vehicles so it doesn't take 10 years is more unobtanium.

There are other issues as well like to much not invented here mentality instead of setting fucntional requirments and letting the contractors come up with the technical solution but the main problem is that NASA doesn't have experienced development people who can wave the BS flag when contractors or internal development teams start making unrealistic development schedules just to sell their program. Add that on top of a short term focus that doesn't do proper strategic planning so that development projects are always initiated late which encourages contractors to over promise and you end up where we are today with gaps in capability and inefficiently run programs chasing unrealistic deadlines. NASA's problem isn't technology, it's people and culture.

"NASA's problem isn't technology, it's people and culture."

Yes.

Hey ex, I'm too depressed right now to think clearly. There's a lot of crap going down here but I wanted to get back to you before this thread goes bye-bye.

Are you familiar with Steidle? I would like to know what you think about the article at the link. I welcome anyone else to chime in with constructive comments on what went down and what he could bring back to the table since MG is gone.

Hey, were reorganizing. Going back to basics. Isn't it interesting that NASAs new direction is really not going to improve the systems that are eventually delivered because they are just going to screw up but with newer technology. Lets ditch what didn't work and look at some models that have had better success.

I think the general topic of military system acquisition is worthy of some discussion.

Keith, is Steidle available for an interview? This stuff might really be what NASA needs in the long run and face it, that's all it's got right now.

"There may be pebbles at the L Points big enough for a teeny weeny flag! There may even be a boulder big enough for a bootprint!"

Unlikely. The L1, L2, and L3 points are unstable. As an example, lets say an object at L1 isn't exactly on the point but slightly closer to Earth...Earth now has slightly more influence than the Moon, the forces are no longer balanced, and the object moves away from the point toward Earth. Unfortunately, perturbation forces ensure that an object, if it is exactly at the point, won't be there for long. Now, this isn't a problem for a spacecraft with GN&C and thrusters, as it turns out that the cost of stationkeeping there is pretty small. However, a pebble or boulder doesn't have a way to actively stationkeep, so it's not going to be spending much time there.

That's why it puzzles me when folks say that they want to "explore" L1, L2, and L3...those points are empty space, there's nothing to explore there! Sure, it's a good place to put spacecraft if the mission calls for it, but you're not going to find anything there.

Now, L4 and L5 (the equilateral points) are stable, but you really don't want to put any sort of space infrastructure at either one. First, these points form an equilateral triangle with the Earth and the Moon, so, if you want to stop there on the way to the Moon, you're literally doubling the distance you'd have to travel. Also, because these points are stable, they tend to catch a lot of space junk, any sort of spacecraft you put at that point runs significant risk of debris impact.

I didn't work for ADM Steidle when I was on active duty but was aware of his work on the JSF fighter and hiw work at the Naval Air Systems Command. I know at both commands he was highly respected and admired within the acquisition community. I was very excited when they brought him onboard NASA in ESMD because I knew he would get it right. Clearly he and Mike Griffin had different ideas on the way forward and as a man of principal he choose to resign rather then be a part of something he could not support. I knew NASA was in trouble when he left because we would be going back to the old way of doing buisness that had failed us in the past. I knew there was no way Orion or ARES 1 was going to be done on the schedule advertised and wasn't surprised in the least when it slipped ( I fully expect manned Dragon will slip as well given their unrealistic promises, Orbital's schedule and budget is more realistic). It was an unrealistic attempt to build something quick to eliminate the gap (note that Steidle's original plan had IOC of 2014, earlier then where Orion ended up, and would have funded two demonstrater vehicles that would have been innovatively designed by industry).

I think he is an aerospace engineering professor at the Naval Academy and well loved by the students. I too would find his perpsective on where Cxp ended up and the new "plan" interesting.

re ex Navy's comments on Steidle:

The JSF Strikefighter is now overrunning at least 50% (probably when it is over it will be 100%) on cost, is behind schedule, and possibly has experienced a degradation of technical requirements! This is the kind of management experience NASA needs/needed?

"You know what I think gets a lot of people about the whole Constellation cancellation? Vehicles and infrastructure were being built. Every previous plan except for X-33 existed firmly in the realm of paper and computer renderings. ...
With Constellation, for its many problems, tangible progress was occurring.
But sure enough. Here we are, starting over yet again."

Exactly.

Constellation had problems, sure, but there was something there we could have changed/built on.

All we have now is a minimum of 5 years of dithering and more paper rockets.

"The future of NASA is in-space propulsion ... going to Mars, or even back to the moon, it's clear that the most cost-effective means of doing so is with constant acceleration"

That is not the hard problem.

The hard problem is getting mass (be it vehicles, propulsion mass/fuel, or whatever) off Earth and into orbit, i) up a large gravity well, and ii) through all that atmosphere. (It's the two together that are a problem - on the Moon, with no atmosphere, just build a big electromagnetic cannon, or some similar solution.)

Without solutions to that hard problem, all else is 'looking under the streetlight for the lost keys' (to refer to an old joke).

Maybe one day there will be industry up there, and we won't have to lug stuff 'up the hill', but for now, everything is down here.

"NASA does not have an operational culture. I would characterize it as a science or technology culture"

Very interesting note, much food there for thought.

One point, re the above: did NASA have a different culture back in the von Braun/etc era? I wonder if the Germans, because of their background in developing a mass-production rocket, or perhaps some other similar factor, had learned some lessons the current generation are missing?

Yes JSF has run into problems. But please note that out of 98 major programs being managed by DOD only 7 are over budget and/or behind schedule.

http://industry.bnet.com/government/10005965/annual-congressional-reports-show-defense-acquisition-struggles/?tag=content;selector-perfector

I consider that a far better batting average then anything NASA does or has done. It is still not good and twice what DOD has nominally seen in the past.

Futhermore the Program Manager was actually fired for his poor performance and LM didn't get all their bonus payments. Never heard of either of those happening at NASA.

No system is perfect and even well run programs can run into problems (JSF's seem to be production related and due to the high level of parallel development, i.e. starting production before the flight test program is complete) but DOD has a far better overall track record.

Could be. The key part NASA is missing is stop focusing on the technology and focus on the capability. Then you design systems that are robust, dependable, easy to operate and easy to train people to use. On example from my Navy days, we working on new tactical displays for an aircraft and we decided to use pull down menu's similar to Windows or Mac for much of the software that was geared to display and system setup. By doing this we were able to eliminate 4 weeks from the crew's training flow because we didn't have to train them on how to access the software (old system used custom operator interface that required lots of traning and memorization to use effectively)and significantlty reduce recurring operating costs. Operating costs were never a decision or design point in any technical decision I have been a part of at NASA.