Congressional Reaction

Yep

CxP and the stick are DOA!

best wishes!

....and he who does not get the money thinks the plan is bad.

As a country we are not aligned on the purpose of HSF and support it or not depending on who gets money. A shallow recipe for long term support

Yep

The Obama plan B is DOA in congress already.

We will see plans C, D, and E before it's over.

JFK "We choose to go to the moon!"

BHO "We choose to uh, build an escape pod."

You know, I wouldn't care who gets the money if we could come up with a plan that gets us beyond LEO before the 2020's! The timetable for beginning real exploration is too drawn out, and the program will probably be canceled long before we ever get a new HLV and any missions beyond ISS.

Yeah, Ms. Kosmas - she seems to have finally caught on - CxP bad, Shuttle extension until nextgen good.

Now, would somebody please clarify to Meek the diff between bad CxP & good Shuttle:

"Canceling Constellation's manned shuttle program means Florida will lose out in jobs, technical expertise and the pride of knowing America's gateway to space lies on Florida shores.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/15/1582146/in-florida-obama-finds-give-and.html

What I find disingenous about the President and Lori Garver's comments are that they say that the Constellation program was overbudget when it is universally acknowledged that the program was underfunded . How can a program manage to be overbudget and underfunded at the same time? It's obviously a dishonest attempt to tarnish the program so they can cancel it and unfortunately it appears to be working - nobody's questioning their ridiculous assertion.

What's even more disappointing about this process is that Obama seems to be modifying his original plan just enough to be able to buy off key opponents. So LM (Lockheed Martin) gets money for a un-necessary and worthless-for-the-money Orion Lite which prompted one of the US Senators from CO to change his tune and KSC workers get a $40 million bribe to quieten their opposition. Neither the President nor our blessed political reps seem to be driven by an overarching vision that goes beyond their districts' jobs and the next election.

It appears to me that Obama left open the possibility (just a little bit) for a fully resurrected Orion program when he said that "And this Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room." That room was the the Operations and Checkout Building at Kennedy where all manned mission capsules were prepared. If the program is indeed resurrected - remember you heard it here first :-)

Finally - listening to Norm Augustine throwing his support behind the ridiculous Orion Lite proposal (which wasn't part of any of the commision's proposals - I don't think) leads me to wonder exactly what influence the admin had on the creation of the so called flexible option. I am beginning to think that the whole thing was cleverly planned from the very beginning - the commission comes out looking clean because they were just considering several proposals and not recommending any of them and the administration can do what it wants (aka the flexible option) while pointing to the commissions "findings" for legitimacy. Really convenient!!

I am wondering is anyone, ANYONE, is aware that NASA is not just FLORIDA (KSC). Even our government, when it speaks of jobs, seems to ignore the other many communities, particularly, Huntsville and Houston, that will be impacted by these decisions.

I am sorry! But you don't just ignore those you are going to be putting out of work. You need to make sure they understand why and what can be done to help them recover their loss.

Or am I just dreaming . . . does anyone really give a damn?!

Congressional reaction, based on geography, is not at all surprising. A hilltop full of hot air and smoke and mirrors. The President is leading by making decisions - hard ones - Congress is pushing back in typical fashion. This happens to space policy every new admiistration, especially since Bush 1 "let's go to Mars!". New space vision, build some hardware, cancel it, change policy again. That's why the United States has lost the high ground on space exploration. Commercial space will create new jobs and NASA can move forward with the hard stuff. Let's do it!

LOL
cessnadriver the crying game! Your Loosing as I write. Play it to your hearts content!
Charlie bit my finger - again !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM

Space Conference Called "Constructive," "Productive"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WeCUJHwaB0

A New Era of Innovation and Discovery - President Obama's Plan for NASA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVS8mjLiP90

No tears here, I am in VERY good company on this.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Ghandi

I'm writing congress again as we speak.
I'm fighting, Obama will have an even less friendly congress soon as well by the way.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile

"The president's announcement today in Florida is a modification of his previous proposal, and it at least recognizes the fact that the American people expect to continue manned space flight in the future. Unfortunately, the plan outlined by the president fails to preserve the United States' role as the established international leader in space exploration.

Rep. Parker Griffith, R-Huntsville, also commented after Obama's speech:

"The president remarked, 'We are no longer racing against an adversary.' This statement ignored the fact that we are in an adversarial relationship with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, and we are competing for the military high ground which is the result of successful space exploration.

"During his speech, the president said, 'I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But the simple fact is, we have been there before.' Decades have passed since we have been to the moon and we are now more able to explore and engage in critical research and establish ourselves on the moon. Manned space flight defines the American culture and we interrupt this culture by not providing a vision and goals for our scientific community to achieve.

"Earlier this week, Apollo Commanders Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan called the President's cuts 'devastating.'

"I was greatly disappointed by the President's speech today. I, along with the NASA Caucus, will work tirelessly to continue funding the Constellation program."

Sorry, but "Not Confused", your quite confused.
As you seem to be in denial of political reality.

You had better start factoring in congress and get a basic understanding of how government works.

No, CxP wasn't underfunded, or wasn't killed by it. CxP was over-ambitious - a leadership problem. That made the runout cost and the operating cost too large; and because Bush fought against NASA budget increases, that stretched the schedule. The schedule could no longer maintain the appearance of sensibility.

The middle of a banking/mortgage crisis is the wrong time to pitch for a 17% NASA budget increase ($3B/$18B), so Obama had to choose something else.

Posted for Emphasis. Others need to post this for further emphasis.

"What I find disingenous about the President and Lori Garver's comments are that they say that the Constellation program was overbudget when it is universally acknowledged that the program was underfunded . How can a program manage to be overbudget and underfunded at the same time? It's obviously a dishonest attempt to tarnish the program so they can cancel it and unfortunately it appears to be working - nobody's questioning their ridiculous assertion.

What's even more disappointing about this process is that Obama seems to be modifying his original plan just enough to be able to buy off key opponents. So LM (Lockheed Martin) gets money for a un-necessary and worthless-for-the-money Orion Lite which prompted one of the US Senators from CO to change his tune and KSC workers get a $40 million bribe to quieten their opposition. Neither the President nor our blessed political reps seem to be driven by an overarching vision that goes beyond their districts' jobs and the next election.

It appears to me that Obama left open the possibility (just a little bit) for a fully resurrected Orion program when he said that "And this Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room." That room was the the Operations and Checkout Building at Kennedy where all manned mission capsules were prepared. If the program is indeed resurrected - remember you heard it here first :-)

Finally - listening to Norm Augustine throwing his support behind the ridiculous Orion Lite proposal (which wasn't part of any of the commision's proposals - I don't think) leads me to wonder exactly what influence the admin had on the creation of the so called flexible option. I am beginning to think that the whole thing was cleverly planned from the very beginning - the commission comes out looking clean because they were just considering several proposals and not recommending any of them and the administration can do what it wants (aka the flexible option) while pointing to the commissions "findings" for legitimacy. Really convenient!!"

Posted for emphasis:
"No, CxP wasn't underfunded, or wasn't killed by it. CxP was over-ambitious - a leadership problem. That made the runout cost and the operating cost too large; and because Bush fought against NASA budget increases, that stretched the schedule. The schedule could no longer maintain the appearance of sensibility.
The middle of a banking/mortgage crisis is the wrong time to pitch for a 17% NASA budget increase ($3B/$18B), so Obama had to choose something else."

Ditto.

"You know, I wouldn't care who gets the money if we could come up with a plan that gets us beyond LEO before the 2020's! The timetable for beginning real exploration is too drawn out, and the program will probably be canceled long before we ever get a new HLV and any missions beyond ISS."

I'd love to see something in the early 2020's, but it's not too drawn out if you hold the engineering to certain levels of safety and you aren't marshaling technological innovation by allocating a huge chunk of the federal budget a la Apollo.

You got it Greg my man.

It's too drawn out, still no specifics and solid goals, not enough money, walking away from existing hardware, Obama will be long out of office, new Presidents, new congresses, nothing will be getting done in the now to cement anything into place for the future.

Congress is clearly not blind to these realities however based on many comments made so far.

Round two is now over, Obama is still on the ropes.

Many rounds still to go.

LOL
Sorry, but "Not Confused", your quite confused.
As you seem to be in denial of political reality.
You had better start factoring in congress and get a basic understanding of how government works.

Yes I know how the Government works. Cessnadriver the FAA has ruled it is OK to take antidepressants.

(AP) Some pilots taking medication for mild or moderate depression will be able to fly as soon as next week under a new government rule aimed partly at getting those taking antidepressants to disclose the treatment.

The new policy, which takes effect Monday, reverses a ban on flying for pilots taking medications like Prozac. Federal Aviation Administration officials said the old rule was based on outdated versions of antidepressants that could cause drowsiness and other side effects.

The medications have been updated and do not pose that risk with everyone, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt told reporters Friday. But there was a side effect to the policy that has now been abrogated, Babbitt said. That rule had resulted in pilots taking those medications to keep their depression and treatment a secret, under the threat of losing their certification to fly.

You can write congress all you want, Sen Nelson was smiling the smile!

CxP is dead as a door nail!

"No, CxP wasn't underfunded, or wasn't killed by it. CxP was over-ambitious - a leadership problem. That made the runout cost and the operating cost too large; and because Bush fought against NASA budget increases, that stretched the schedule. The schedule could no longer maintain the appearance of sensibility."

From what I could tell, the funding was one of the issues.

The program was very poorly thought out and poorly organized. There was no strategy or timing to its implementation.

The program management was acting as though we'd be placing men on the moon in about 5 years. They were funding all kinds of offices for studying experiments and EVAs and sorties, and science....
but in reality at this point in the program they only needed to
(1) decide on the purpose of the Orion capsule
(2) define its requirements
(3) define its resource requirements and parameters
(4) then begin to define the launch vehicle requirements

That entire effort could have/should have taken no more than a year or two. They tried to do (1) and (4) simultaneously without seriously doing (2) and (3). This meant they were constantly chasing their tail for most of a four year period.

It appeared they first tried to define (4), and they already knew the answer before they asked the question, but then they ignored the performance capabilities when they came up with a series of bloated, oversized, overweight Orion configurations with requirements that would never be met.

When people tried to tell them the requirements could not be met, they all smiled and said we'll figure it out downstream.

Aside from some PR, there was no need to be establishing any of the organizations for functions that were going to be 2 decades away. But they liked hiring friends and promoting them into positions of responsiblity.

Another issue was that there are already a lot of people within the NASA organization that perform many of the functions of designing and developing systems for spacecraft, defining and designing the research program, etc. In the interest of full cost accounting all of the organizations outside of the Program wanted to charge to the Constellation budget. Constellation, because they were immature and inexperienced, felt they needed little expertise outside their program and project offices, and therefore would not need to pay for it. So they shortchanged the program on expertise in requirements definition and development, and the rest of NASA said 'pay up' or you don't need us. It was a lose lose proposition all around.

NASA management is so poor in experience and competence; essentially none at all in DDT&E and little complementary experience between organizations-operations has basically been managing everything for the last decade, that even though the management saw this happening, they decided they need not speak up or take corrective action. They 'maintained that even strain' while the program was dieing.

Others who were in positions of authority, in Space Ops, and Center Directors, saw what was happening but they 'maintained that even strain' too, did not offer help, and continued to shut down Shuttle, making as though everything was working according to plan. (Of course they also had an Administrator who knew all the answers, disregarded the truth, and insisted the work of the last 4 decades was all a mistake. So speaking up likely would have been terminal).

That was how we got into the mess we are now in.

It is conceivable, if they find some competent program management and if they organize so that the whole of the HSF gets behind the effort, they could actually develop the Orion super lite (despite no technical need for it) and develop that XM planetary cruiser, and even develop the heavy lift launcher. But so far, in the last two months, no signs that any one has begun to move to do anything, including putting in place a logical Visionary sequence.

If they think that Obama, Garver and Bolden are going to tell them what they need to do, then we are already starting on this new 'plan' from a position of insecurity. The experienced, working people should have been developing the plans and options.

"So far, in the last two months, no signs that any one has begun to move to do anything, including putting in place a logical Visionary sequence.

If they think that Obama, Garver and Bolden are going to tell them what they need to do, then we are already starting on this new 'plan' from a position of insecurity. The experienced, working people should have been developing the plans and options."

I would not say that no one had been coming up with a logical Visionary sequence. I thing that is what Crawley from MIT did during the Augustine proceedings, and that is what Buzz has been doing. I don't know of anyone within NASA working on it though.

not confused, what do pilots taking antidepressants have to do with congressional reaction to Obama's speech? Was this a trolling personal attack or do you have anything to contribute?

"CxP is dead as a door nail!"

So, what's your take on the resurrection of Orion?

Sorry, but there is no Obama plan to go to an asteroid or to Mars because you can't get to any of those places without a vehicle! And Obama doesn't even have to fund the development of the first component of such a vehicle, until almost the end of his second term-- if he gets a second term.

Its easy to sit down and dream about the future. But it takes courage to make it happen!

So far, President Obama hasn't even shown the courage to immediately fund the development of an HLV which is something that he and Bolden claim that we need!

Marcel F. Williams

They can accelerate the HLV (to get jobs in their districts) but we still wont go anywhere before the 2020s. Space travel is about more than an HLV.

I guess they just don't get that we need new technologies. It will be a hard lesson for congress.

Critique of CxP seems pretty easy. An underfunded plan that was billed "pay as you go" was always doomed to be late. Seems obvious but people don't ever discuss this subtle point. The fact of the matter is that CxP has spent billions and has demonstrated many of the key technologies it set out to demonstrate. Recall that the stick was "too long, skinny, and unstable so it can't be controlled." Ares I-X demonstrated control using modified existing hardware. People criticized the staging but that wasn't part of the demo. The 5 segment solid fired successfully. Much of the 2nd stage manufacturing demonstrations have been completed. The 2nd stage engine has completed all feasible component testing and will be in engine test early next year - based on proven technology. The fact is, CxP is 100% technically feasible, it's just not funded so it has to be cancelled or modified significantly.

Here's the knock on the Obama plan. It's not a plan. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has made a case for commercial space to help in space exploration. The most audacious claim is that they can ferry stuff to 220 kmi/51.5 deg. inclination but that is just a wish that hasn't undergone any independent, non-advocate review. It's a wish. The business case has never been established (reuse of the SpaceX first stage - Please!!!) nor has it ever been linked to how we're going to visit asteroids, Martian moons, or even back to the boring, old moon. Forget jobs, forget political pay-offs, this is just a non-plan. Tech investment is a good thing but it's not something that'll yield a rapid return to human space flight. TRL 4 doesn't translate into faster launch than CxP technology. Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand technology development.

Looking back, the whole Augustine commission membership was completely slanted for a "new space" handout and they're being used as the rationale for the new plan. Was there any participation with anyone experienced from NASA (like Bill Gerstenmaier)? Was there anyone active in an existing launch provider (like Brewster Shaw)? How about anyone who's examined a launch business case (like Alan Mullaly)? Nope, just a figurehead (Norm Augustine - who had an awful lot of vacation during the hearings), a couple of failed commercial space guys (Bejmuk - bankrupt Sealaunch, Greason, - bankrupt Rotary Rocket), and even an ex-astronaut who now works for a new space company. They were not much of a non-advocate review.

Congress - it's up to you to show some leadership. Looking for a plan from a large collective is quite a "Hail Mary" but US space leadership is down by 6 and there's about a second left on the clock. Sadly, it appears the US public wants to switch over the a rerun of "Heidi".

Are the CxPers happy with the ressurection of Orion as a CRV? There is your answer.

"What I find disingenous about the President and Lori Garver's comments are that they say that the Constellation program was overbudget when it is universally acknowledged that the program was underfunded."

It is not disingenuous to say CxP was overbudget. It is an informed fact. CxP was underfunded based on the original VSE plan Bush rolled out in 2004. But the program, like all others, replans on a 5-year projection each year as the budget is passed. So CxP had slipped its first crewed flight 4 years from 2011 (original ESAS date) to 2015 in order to fit new budget projections. This was due, in part, to the new reduced funding profile. But much of the schedule slip was due to major redesigns (J-2X instead of SSME and 5 instead of 4 segement SRB) and requirements perturbations from the original ESAS architecture, not to mention the slashed capabilities. However, CxP was overbudget to the new funding profile to which it had already adjusted. IOC was fixing to slip another 2 years to 2017 before Obama's 2011 budget came out, and it would have slipped another 3 years to 2020 based on past performance, no evidence to believe that would improve. It was at PDR after 6 years and the PDR wasn't even mature enough to be a real PDR. It would have been a miracle to get from PDR to IOC in 10 years even given the Shuttle and ISS budgets as planned. This was a poorly managed program from the start from president Bush on down to NASA senior management at each Center. This program was broken before Obama was even elected. He has the courage to put this pitiful joke out of its misery.

The fact about CxP is that it was never supported financially by those who conceived and approved it, it was way over budget to the new plans based on a reduced funding profile in spite of massive schedule slips. Capabilities had been slashed to the point that Orion was no longer going to be BEO-capable. We were on a path to spend $50 billion just to regain LEO after a 10-year gap with no destination in LEO. With the funding left over after the cost of operating Ares 1/Orion in LEO with no ISS, Ares V/EDS would have taken another 15 years to develop for lunar flyby. Developing Altair would not be an option because the cost of operating Ares 1/Ares V to lunar orbit would consume the entire NASA budget for human space flight. This architecture was not designed to fit within any budget profile ever considered. Even the original VSE budget profile would not come close to meeting the demands of this ill-conceived program.

With the old plan we might have spent decades on the moon building an ISS scale base but the new plan though makes the mistake of skipping the moon entirely for asteroids and Mars. We need at least some lunar landing capability given other countries may go there. 2015 seems like a long time to settle on a design for a heavy lift rocket and the Orion capsule should be built as originally planned. Though asteroids can make for good practice runs for Mars, there is only a limited amount of exploration that can be done. Other than asteroids we are otherwise potentially looking at a fly by but not land program for possibly thirty years or more which isn't very inspiring. The moon is the only nearby world we can realistically do any near term exploration and a place many of us would like to look up in the sky and know there are human beings living. For now if we can develop the heavy rocket and Orion capsule perhaps by the middle of the decade we can begin work on a lunar lander.

Let me add that though a mission beyond the moon to an asteroid would be a great human achievement, there are many of us who would like to see both a return to the moon and first landing on Mars in our lifetimes. If the country can't afford both a lunar base and manned Mars trips, then I'd say we should do a dozen or so Apollo type landings on the Moon and then go on to asteroids and Mars.

they say that the Constellation program was overbudget when it is universally acknowledged that the program was underfunded

Constellation costs were going to continue to grow so as to consume whatever amount of funding was available.

"Constellation costs were going to continue to grow so as to consume whatever amount of funding was available."

That's easy to say, but there aren't any facts to support that statement. As discussed in the Augustine report, Constellation was underfunded by $1 to $2 billion each year since its start.

The whole point of humans going into space is to live there and create permanant human presence beyond one world.

Asteroids are not worlds.

We won't be colonizing them.

For a side mission, I see visiting one as interesting. But as a primary goal?

Robotic exploration makes more sense to me, learning how to deflect them need not require human presence.

But permanant human presence in space requires human presence and a world to be present on.

The moon is also very much a world, is it Mars?
No, hell no. But it is so very close to us!

It is disasterous to not go back there and learn how to live and work in other worlds.

And we all know the Moon offers benefits unique to it if we return and exploit them.

Obama makes no sense at all to me.
Other then he seems to just want to erase anything that might have the Bush brand on it and put his own name on things. Could it be that trivial?
At times that is the only explaination I can find.

He offers the goals so far in the future, and no hardware to actually start working on anytime soon. It's all vaporware rainbows and unicorns.

That isn't a space program. That's politics.

ruh roh, Indiana - another swing state - not on board either:

OUR VIEW: Obama's space plan likely to leave U.S. on the ground

His speech could best be summed up as a failure to launch.

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20100418/OPINION01/4180322

(noticeably accurate in that it acknowledges the failure of the Bush CxP rocket too)

Nelson & Kosmos are pathetic. I'm not from Florida but they have sold out with 40M handout. The Techs/Engineers that I've met at KSC are too smart to sit around and re-train in ??? ..Carbon-watching or something? The Florida delegation floundered with Spaceport Fl., did not properly back/fund Cx, made little Shuttle transition plans and are now expecting votes for cash...pathetic.

Obama's plan will never come to fruition because he won't be around to tend it. New leadership will come in, new leadership will go out with the tides. He should be setting his sights on a shorter time frame. Yes, Mars is perhaps the next big step but something he will have no influence in. You want to change the course of history? Try setting a goal for 2014, not 2035.

@ CessnaDriver,

The asteroids have a few interesting scientific justifications of their own.

Firstly, much like the comets they are 'fossils' of the early solar system where there has never been enough heat to melt down and internally differentiate materials. So, rock samples from enough NEOs might tell us a bit more about the chemical composition of the early days of the solar system.

More importantly, IMHO at least, NEO sampling might tell us the distribution of potentially-useful minerals and metals in near-Earth space. Although economically unjustifiable at the moment, it is possible that there might be a large seam of cobalt or some other REE out there that can be towed into LEO or one of the EML points for harvesting.

Another important reason for NEO encounter missions is PHO mitigation. It will be a vital proving ground for analysing the motions of small near-Earth objects and developing approach and rendezvous techniques. Doing so well enough to make it safe to have a crewed rendezvous is automatically safe enough to dock a VASMIR NEP to deflect a potential/actual impactor's path.

Finally, NEOs, by the nature of their paths, enable the test of long-haul BEO flight technologies. They will often do so in a way where, even if there is a fault with the main mission vehicle, an Orion could perform an abort to Earth re-entry during the closest approach between NEO and Earth using just its MPS. So, it is a somewhat shorter and safer proving mission than, say, a Venus or Phobos orbiter.

Overall, exploration of NEOs has a variety of justifications. Although not an end in themselves, they are a stepping stone to more ambitious destinations. They are also not without value of their own to justify the effort.

P.S.: Maybe someone in the know can help out here. Is there any compelling reason why a lunar lander could not also be used as a lander for a large Main Belt asteroid?

The window of opportunity to get BACK on course has been opened and the process has begun.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/15/obama-lays-out-bold-and-visionary-revised-space-policy/

Pretty good editorial here, though illustrates one of the obfuscations Obama's political bent is all about. People, including Discover Magazine, are making the assumption that the heavy lift launcher is a done deal.

All Obama said was that NASA would look at it and a decision would be made in 5 years. If he was truthful and forthright, he would have defined a more reasonable period of study, likely around 6-9 months, and it would have been in the plan for completion in about 5 years.

Obama is really being disingenuous, political, and bordering on dishonest; this will likely waste a lot of existing brainpower, existing jobs, and American taxpayers' money.

If the decision is decided in favor of Shuttle derived, and it almost certainly should be given the tremendous investment in Shuttle systems and infrastructure over 40 years, then that is all likely to be in poor shape for a re-start in five years.

If we are going to go ahead with an asteroid mission and then a Mars transit mission, then no reason why we should not start working towards that capability now, rather than about the time he is leaving office - he might be leaving office a lot sooner.

Likewise, if Obama is serious about putting our faith in commercial transport to LEO, which he gave lip service to in his speech, then there is no need for the Orion lite-weight. No doubt this was the minimal bone he could throw to placate his supporters in Colorado. It really does not support his new revised vision in any way.

The more I hear from him, the less I believe he or his group is doing anything good for NASA or for the American people.

This new vision basically enforces his original plan to delay anything by five years and put money into earth studies, education and other things.

But have no doubt, the Obama vision does wind up destroying a considerable investment the American people have made in our present capabilities.

Unfortunately, I also do not agree that saving Constellation is the thing to do. Constellation was poorly managed, not supported by Congress or the American people, and its time that Mr. Armstrong and others get off of that idea. Get behind Senator Hutchinson's idea to continue Shuttle for a bit longer and move up the HLV and firm up the work towards future missions.

CxP's main Achilles heel was placed there by design. The de-orbiting of ISS to pay for CxP. Augustine provided no option which included ISS and CxP either. Too expensive.

And then you had budgets that failed to appear and design issues with the rockets.

I think the dishonesty is coming from you more than Obama. Obama said they would select the HLV "no later than 2015 and then begin to build it".

If your position is that he's a pathological liar (rich) then you might as well quote him accurately and then just call him a liar. Misquoting him and then calling him a liar is an inefficient use of slander.

http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html

Perhaps I am not as correct as I thought:

"Next, we will invest more than $3 billion to conduct research on an advanced “heavy lift rocket....and we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it."

Or perhaps it is the way the President phrased it.

But why the extended 5 year study period ?

Is launch technology, which is somewhat older than spaceflight and which has received a fair amount of continuous R&D, really going to change that much with a couple thousand people working on it each of the next 5 years ?

Can we afford that much time to figure out what we want to build ?

Can we afford to lose so much of the existing Shuttle-based infrastructure before we decide how to move forward ?

Similarly, many of the people and technology available from ISS which could be used in the long duration planetary vehicle is available now but have been running out of development activities for some time. Presumably this also gets delayed since there is no need for it before we have a launch vehicle ready.

What I hear him saying is, we will have a 5-10 year development period, starting after my term of office (maybe long after). Why the delay ? Why defer a decision any longer than necessary ?

5 years of working out if orbital propellant, inflatables, advanced trajectory management, etc, etc, will work out ok. Until then, we won't won't even know if an HLV is worth building, and certainly won't know the size of HLV that may be needed.

In addition, it's important that HLV funding doesn't suck R&D funding until NASA can be brought into the 21st Century with respect to technology and mission concepts.

Sorry, I don't buy it.
I worked the development of several payloads and the module design, Skylab through ISS and Lunar Mars too. We know the rough sizes and masses of manageable 'packages'.

We know things can easily be scaled up through clustering when we need something bigger.

We know that, using the systems we have available now from Shuttle, we can build and deploy an HLV for 6 billion or less (according to John Shannon a lot less) within 3-5 years.

Or we can start from scratch, something like an Ares 5, and we know it will cost closer to $100 billion and 10-15 years.

And we know that better is the enemy of good enough.

I'd rather see a solid commitment and a plan to move out today rather than a maybe in 5 years.

I'd rather see us use what we have invested in Shuttle instead of throwing it away and trying to start over in five years.

What exactly do you think is going to take 5 years to figure out? Based on my experience in the design of several space vehicles, usually the big design decisions can be done in a lot less time.
Many of the people working the Constellation architecture started on it during SEI in 1988, and they continued through ESAS in 2009, and in 20 years they did not get it right.

We need to see where the tech is taking us, and where the precursors are going, ad how they're going. We really shouldn't need ANY HLVs. Also, that money must go into R&D and precursor flight first, if we're really going to change the game here. We still have EELVs and, as a species, Proton, Soyuz, Ariane V, etc.

Oh boy. So you want *all* the money for research. That's what this has been about all along. Nothing but a power grab. We'll be left with nothing but hot air, broken promises and PowerPoint slides.

YES! and another swing state Ohio bites the martian-asteroidal dust:

OUR VIEW: Abandoning our ability to go into space not in nation’s best interest

With the 50th anniversary approaching of President John F. Kennedy issuing the challenge to America to put men on the moon by the end of the 1960s, Obama wants to buy rides into space from the Russians, Chinese, Europeans and private businesses.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, is calling for postponing retiring the space shuttles for awhile to retain America’s ability to venture into space. That makes good sense, especially since any savings from retiring the shuttle fleet likely won’t go to pay down the nation’s growing debt to China.

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/04/18/opinion/mj2616358.txt

As much as it pains me to admit it, Ms. Hutchinson seems to be the most effective HSF Senate advocate - excellent job there (but if Texas cedes from the union, you'll have to give up JSC ya know). She may need to upstage Shelby and think Finance Reform bill to get a Shuttle extension deal?

"as a species, Proton, Soyuz, Ariane V, etc."

You really must be quite naive to think that the Russians see their rockets as some sort of 'species' owned item.

The Russians would be doing ISS alone as Mir 3 if they had the money back in the 1990's.

I suppose the Chinese rockets are also 'species' owned as a the heritage of all humanity also.

Would you really want to let space be dominated by the type of government currently ruling China?

Do you care if that happens?

In Texas we are all very happy that Sen Hutchinson did not get elected as governor since we really need her in the senate for exactly this reason. Senator Hutchinson is the only Senator who has shown any genuine leadership in spaceflight.

Obama made a big thing how he had changed the previous administration's plan to cancel ISS after 2015, yet, when he came to Shuttle, he was very clear last week that he had to do it since it was the prior administration's plan. Maybe he should try for consistency.

Fact is that because of infrastructure costs and manpower still on the job, it is much less expensive and much safer to develop any kind of a Shuttle derived heavy lift booster than delaying the decision for 5 years to begin on something new at that time.

Its time for Obama to change his plan and use some Spock-like logic.

Hmmm... so what did we get:
- let us construct a huuuuge rocket to fly beyond leo
- we don't know yet, where to fly with it, but there are lots of possible destinations
- oh yes, we will fly to mars, not this decade and not the next one, but we will and I will watch it (if the next three presidents wont change that path)

To give a promise which others have to keep, is very easy...
It shouldn't take 25 years to develop the right hardware to get to mars.

The technology to get to Mars does not exist, nor does the heavy lift capability. To develop both will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will take decades. It shouldn't take 25 years to develop, but it does because NASA has spent 30 years operating in LEO and as a result has not been able to afford technology development. On top of that, our ability to do such cutting-edge work has atrophied. NASA HSF is a bunch of ops people who know nothing of development.

Nor do any of the design folks at MSFC, KSC, or any other center know how to run a large scale devlopment program. Stop using the mission operations strawman for why NASA can't do development. We can't do it because we don't have any experience. We don't have any experience because we don't build new vehicles on a regular basis (last development program we executed was over 30 years ago) and we don't do that because NASA has become to focused on doing "science" instead of building space transportation infrastructure so that we always have space access and new vehicles coming on line as old ones retire. It takes 15 years to go from program start to IOC for any major aerospace program (DOD Lessons Learned database)so we are already 5 years behind schedule if we want to replace the ISS with something else (moon base, fuel depot, whatever)when it is ready to be retired in 2020.

"Stop using the mission operations strawman for why NASA can't do development."

I'm afraid that 'Mission ops' is taking the brunt of this complaint because over the last decade, within HSF, 'Mission Ops' made a concerted effort to take over everything and made a point of telling others from outside of 'Mission Ops' that they didn't have 'the right stuff' with which to do the job.

You are right, NASA has not done a full-up human spacecraft development effort in a generation, but a lot of people, though few if any from 'Mission Ops', have been responsible for developing some key systems on a variety of vehicles and carriers.

As long as everyone in the management comes out of a single group, essentially none with any of the requisite experience for a development effort, while others with experience are excluded, you will see complaints.

One method of selecting personnel is 'the good ole boys' network, which is politically based, and in complex processes, is likely to fail. The other way, when people are selected for their applicable experience, is professional.

Over the last 5 years NASA-HSF went through a low point in management. The situation NASA is in today is due directly to this circumstance.

Have to disagree with you. NASA's problems go back a lot farther then just 5 years. Their problem is a complete lack of a program for managing and developing leaders capable of managing large development programs. That has been the case for the 10 years I have been associated with it.

I agree that any program team needs people from mutiple organizations with different experiences. I also agree that too much of NASA management is selected based upon the good ole boys network as well as upon one's ability to get along as opposed to actual competence or ability to get things done.

Having said that the reason you saw such a push from Ops folks to move into leadership positions in the Constellation program was based on our experience with ISS. ISS is a classic example of engineers run amok designing a system that is difficult and costly to operate. ISS was designed and developed with little to no Operations input. It is heavily dependent on ground operations to work around poorly designed systems and software (over 600 workarounds) and if it had been designed with ease of operations in mind then it's operational cost's could be significantly less. We wanted to make sure that we didn't get saddled with a design that made our jobs harder then they had to be.

DOD learned that lesson back in the 80's and the emphasis while I was going through Test Pilot School was on the need for early involvment of the users of the system in defining requirements, and performing the design reviews. In fact in the Navy you have to be an aviator before you can be an aviation acquisition expert.

So what you really need is well rounded leaders with experience all facets of program development and you need balanced teams with expertise from technology, engineering, and operations. Bashing one group over another doesn't help us solve our problems.

ISS is a classic example of engineers run amok...poorly designed systems and software (over 600 workarounds)

Its interesting that you bring up that example. The human interface to the software architecture, protocols and displays used to be a Life Sciences function specifically for the purpose you identify-in order to ease the burden on the flight crew. About 15 years ago Flight Crew Ops decided they wanted to be in charge of designing the human-systems interfaces to hardware and software, and then Mission Ops decided they needed to be in charge of that software human computer interface design function and eventually they took over most of the computer/S/W architecture. It started because they were confused between their ops functions of developing computer simulations and the 'real' modeling which was done for systems design purposes. They went around in circles for years and have never recovered. Its a prime example of where Ops should never have been involved except from the user perspective, but the weak leadership of life sciences couldn't hang onto their design responsibilities.

Yes, life sciences real job was the spacecraft design and integration from the standpoint of the crew interface. Now they just do science. That was one reason why the full-sized Orion turned out unflyable-they never did the real trades on sizing and cockpit arrangement.

Otherwise I basically agree with everything you say; but a lot of us who do have the DDT&E and the crew integration experience are still around. You just did not see any the experienced people in Constellation (or in ISS).

Maybe our idea of who is Mission Ops is slightly different but we haven't taken over the computer/ software archtecture. That has remained in the domain of the ISS Program Office. I do agree that we got involved with the crew display design more then we should have back in the early parts of ISS but that wasn't at our request. We were told that the ISS Program Office and contractors couldn't develop the display in time and so we had to do it. We fully recognized we didn't have the human factors knowledge or experience and that our efforts were very amateurish but we did the best we could to at least create something usable.

Hopefully NASA learns their lessons and does better next time, just like DOD did in the 70's and 80's. I am hopeful. The little work I have done on Orion vehicle software was a vast improvement over what I saw on ISS and had well formed teams with people from the contractor, engineering, crew and flight operations and even experts from other centers like JPL.

Actually they created an entirely new organization-actually two, CA3 and CA4, about that time (~1993) to lead the crew interface and human factors work.

Where are the human factors experts today and do they have a role in the design? There used to be a Human Computer Interface Laboratory (in SP) that had the lead for this. It was populated by several PhDs who had developed aircraft cockpits, STA, Shuttle, and all earlier spacecraft.

Perhaps the ISS Program Office is leading the effort since they have all the best experts in all areas (actually they don't, they just hold all the dollars).

It points out exactly the problem that started this thread. You ought to develop and maintain the expertise, over time, across programs...if one or two organizations try to take it all over, then you wind up trying to operate by the 'Good Ole Boys network', since experience and expertise no longer count for anything.

I think you've described the situation to a 'T'. This is how JSC has been trying to operate since the latest rendition of ISS came in, about 93'. This is what is killing HSF.

But the senior leadership, like ex Navy, do not seem to have a clue as to how to fix it. Why is the crew office trying to pretend they have the human factors knowledge or experience instead of insisting that the appropriate organization get that expertise ?

Its not unique to the crew office, or to Mission Ops, or to the ISS Program Office. But these are the people who held the cards (and dollars) and the more they looked around the more they grabbed.

The senior management should have recognized what they were doing (all the senior management comes from these groups) and realized they were killing the program. But the people in place today did not know any better because they were all about like ex Navy and had been here too short time so they didn't know how it should have been operating.

It may be too late now.